Cibrar^  of  Che  Cheological  Seminary 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF 
ROBERT  ELLIOTT  SPEER 

'N 

BT  701  . W4 5  1884 
Westbrook,  Richard  Brodhead. 
Man--whence  and  whither? 


MAN 


WHENCE  AND  WHITHER? 


RICHARD  B.  WESTBROOK,  D.D.,  LL.B., 


Author  of  “Marriage  and  Divorce”  and  “The  Bible — 
Whence  and  What?” 


“A  man  was  famous  according  as  he  had  lifted  up  axes  upon 
the  thick  trees.” — Ps.  lxxiv.  5. 

“  Every  undertaking  is  involved  in  its  faults,  as  the  fire  in  its 
smoke.” — Hindu  Bible. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT  &  CO. 

1884. 


COPYRICHT,  1884,  BY  RlCHARD  BrODHEAD  WESTBROOK. 


PREFACE. 


The  present  is  an  age  of  intense  mental  curiosity. 
There  is  an  increasing  disposition  to  inquire  into  the 
reason  of  things.  Men  are  not  content  with  superficial 
appearances ;  they  want  to  examine  the  foundations. 
Man  is  a  fact  in  the  universe.  What  is  his  nature,  his 
constitution,  and  personality?  Where  did  he  come  from? 
Where  is  he  going  ?  Books  relating  to  these  subjects  are 
generally  large  and  expensive,  and,  with  few  exceptions, 
are  too  professional ;  they  abound  with  technicalties. 
Many  cannot  afford  to  purchase  them.  Few  have  the 
leisure  and  patience  to  plod  through  them.  The  average 
reader  cannot  comprehend  them. 

This  plain,  cheap  little  book  is  intended  for  busy, 
active  people,  who  have  but  little  time  to  read  and  no 
taste  for  metaphysics.  High-sounding  words  have  been 
avoided  or  explained.  Evolution,  as  defined  by  one  of 
its  most  learned  champions,  is  “a  change  from  an  indef¬ 
inite  and  incoherent  homogeneity  to  a  definite,  coherent 
heterogeneity  through  continuous  differentiations  and  in¬ 
tegrations.”  No  real  conception  is  formed  by  the  ordi- 


m 


IV 


Preface . 

•/ 


nary  reader  from  these  jingling  words,  but  a  child  can 
understand  when  told  that  evolution  is  the  orderly  process 
of  Nature  by  which  one  thing  comes  out  of  another,  and 
succeeds  another  as  the  effect  follows  the  cause. 

No  pretence  is  made  to  profound  learning  or  scientific 
knowledge.  Things  are  taken  as  they  are,  or  as  they  are 
supposed  to  be,  and  natural  conclusions  are  drawn  from 
them.  The  substance  of  these  essays,  has  recently  been 
delivered  in  a  course  of  Free  Lectures  in  the  Hall  of  the 
Philadelphia  City  Institute  to  large  and  highly  apprecia¬ 
tive  audiences,  but  they  were  stereotyped  for  this  book 
before  they  were  delivered  in  the  form  of  lectures.  The 
publication  is  not  an  after-thought,  an  attempt  to  utilize 
ephemeral  oral  discourses.  The  author  believes  that  he 
has  something  to  say  for  the  public  good  that  he  can 
better  say  outside  of  the  Church  and  the  conventional 
ministry,  and  therefore  chooses  to  write  and  lecture  as  an 
independent ,  untrammelled  by  ecclesiastical  supervision 
and  control,  and  free  from  that  bias  which  is  quite  insep¬ 
arable  from  sectarian  connections  and  partisanship.  For 
the  views  presented  the  author  is  alone  responsible,  though 
he  has  freely  availed  himself  of  the  thoughts  of  many 
others. 


Philadelphia 


April  8,  1884. 


1 


R.  B.  Westbrook, 

No.  1707  Oxford  St. 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS. 


PREFACE . vii,  viii 

INTRODUCTION .  . ix-xxiii 


CHAPTER  I. 

Is  Man  a  Mere  Animal? 

At  birth  he  seems  inferior  to  brutes,  but  the  scale  soon  turns. 
Develops  a  capacity  to  learn.  Sense  of  personality.  The 
Ego  purely  human ;  so  with  moral  sense.  Intuitive  recog¬ 
nition  of  God.  '  Hope  of  immortality.  Language.  The  Ego 
independent  of,  and  superior  to,  physical  organism.  Per¬ 
sonal  identity  notwithstanding  physical  changes.  Heredi¬ 
tary  desent.  Somnambulism.  Dreams.  Clairvoyance — ex¬ 
amples.  Medical  authority.  Doctors  La  Roche,  Nichols, 
Clark,  and  Holmes.  Clairvoyant  description  of  the  process 
of  death.  “Outer”  and  “inner”  man.  The  “spiritual 
body” — criticism  on  Luke  24:39.  Spirit  as  realas  light, 
heat,  magnetism,  electricity,  and  gravitation  ....  1-30 

CHAPTER  II. 

Common  Dogma  of  Man’s  Origin. 

Not  a  divine  revelation  by  special  inspiration.  Substantially 
the  same  narrative  found  among  nations  before  the  Hebrew 
story.  Babylonians  and  Akkadians.  British  Museum  cunei¬ 
form  tablets.  The  story  in  Genesis  a  compilation,  and  con¬ 
tradictory.  The  Pentateuch  contains  many  statements  not 


V 


VI 


Synopsis  of  Contents . 

historically  true,  and  unscientific.  Attempts  of  theologians 
to  reconcile  Genesis  and  geology  a  failure.  The  Mosaic 
(so  called)  account  not  as  scientific  as  the  Persian.  Old-Tes¬ 
tament  chronology  discredited.  Age  of  the  earth.  The  story 
in  Genesis  not  held  as  literal  history  by  early  Jews  and  Chris¬ 
tian  Fathers.  Children  in  Sunday-schools  taught  fables  as 
facts.  Danger  of  reaction  when  the  fraud  is  discovered. 
Parallels  to  Bible-myths.  The  allegory  in  Genesis  contains 
many  important  truths,  but  is  incredible  and  absurd  regarded 
as  literal  history  . 3I_5^ 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Evolution  Hypothesis. 

Universe  governed  by  the  same  general  laws.  Evolution  a 
characteristic  of  the  constitution  of  Nature.  Evolution  in 
plain  words.  Nebular  hypothesis — what?  Creation  by  evo¬ 
lution.  Same  principle  of  development  applies  to  animals 
and  men.  Theories  of  Huxley  and  Haeckel  stated.  Man 
and  all  other  animals  now  developed  from  eggs.  Primaeval 
man  ape-like,  but  not  an  ape.  General  tendency  of  humanity 
upward.  Was  man  developed  from  a  brute,  or  was  he  an 
original  creation  ?  All  evolutionists  not  Darwinians.  The 
evolution  doctrine  before  Darwin.  Material  evolution  ex¬ 
plained.  It  cannot  account  for  the  origin  of  man.  Sponta¬ 
neous  generation.  Evolution  does  not  imply  direct  descent 
from  immediately  preceding  types.  If  man  is  related  to  the 
monkey,  it  is  not  by  lineal  descent,  but  by  widely-divergent 
lines,  constituting  a  distcml  cousinship . 57-^3 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Answer  of  Theism  as  to  Man’s  Origin. 

Materialism  ignores  the  question  of  the  absolute  origin  of 
things,  and  is  based  upon  assumptions.  What  it  assumes. 
Natural  selection — what?  Purely  chance.  It  may  be  a  pro¬ 
cess,  but  not  a  cause.  Darwin  not  an  atheist.  Admissions 


Synopsis  of  Contents.  vii 

of  Tyndall,  Haeckel,  Spencer,  and  Arnold.  May  not  atheists 
and  theists  mean  the  same  thing,  though  using  different 
words  ?  Conceptions  of  God,  false  and  true.  The  Unknow¬ 
able  of  Spencer  and  the  Unsearchable  of  Zophar.  Where 
did  God  originate  ?  Theists  have  one  assumption,  and  prove  it 
by  the  facts  of  the  universe,  a  posteriori.  Materialists  ascribe 
to  matter  all  that  theists  ascribe  to  God.  Theism  rational 
and  scientific.  It  is  impossible  to  account  for  the  existence 
of  man  without  admitting  the  existence  of  God,  though  we 
cannot  comprehend  him . S4-117 

CHAPTER  V. 

Is  Death  the  End  of  Man? 

The  majority  of  men  have  not  so  believed.  Some  disbelievers 
have  always  existed.  The  Old  Testament  full  of  scepticism. 
Agnosticism — what  ?  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  at  the  funeral  of 
his  brother.  Why  the  future  life  is  unattractive  to  many 
persons.  Positivism  of  Comte.  Huxley’s  estimate  of  it. 
How  John  W.  Chadwick  characterizes  it.  The  “  succes¬ 
sion  ”  and  “  annihilation  ”  dogmas.  The  materialistic  hy¬ 
pothesis  on  physiological  grounds  answered  by  Prof.  Draper. 
Prof.  Hseckel  confounds  force  and  motion.  Conceptions  of 
spirit  as  unlike  gross  matter.  The  continuance  of  life  no 
more  marvellous  than  its  beginning.  The  hypothesis  of 
man’s  animal  descent  not  opposed  to  immortality.  Facts  in 
school-books  show  that  the  existence  of  mind  does  not  depend 
upon  the  brain.  Orthodox  dogmas  of  material  resurrection 
and  future  judgment  make  sceptics.  Arguments  from  alleged 
resurrection  of  Jesus  worthless.  Liberal  ministers  criti¬ 
cised  .  .  118-147 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Foundation  of  Faith  in  a  Future  Life. 

The  scientific  principles  of  “  conservation  of  energy,”  “  persist¬ 
ency  of  force,”  “indestructibility  of  matter,”  and  “natural 


viii  Synopsis  of  Contents. 

selection”  favor  the  future  life.  Difference  between  the 
material  and  immaterial  not  defined.  Human  intuitions  not 
to  be  compared  to  ignorant  beliefs.  Men  do  not  desire  and 
hope  for  the  impossible.  Dr.  James  E.  Garretson’s  theorem. 
Some  men  may  not  be  immortal.  Future  life  not  necessarily 
immortal.  Human  apparitions  after  death.  Dr.  Clark,  Rich¬ 
ard  Watson,  and  John  Wesley  on  the  appearance  of  Samuel. 
New-Testament  cases.  Melanchthon,  Luther,  and  Oberlin. 
The  “  Apostles’  Creed.”  Witchcraft.  Baron  Louis  Gulden- 
stubbe’s  book.  Communication  from  Luther  to  the  bishop  of 
Orleans.  Why  these  cases  are  introduced.  Scientific  inves¬ 
tigations  of  Zollner  and  other  German  scholars  as  described 
by  Rev.  Joseph  Cook.  English  scientists  convinced  by  super- 
sensuous  phenomena — Wallace,  Crooks,  and  Varley.  Amer¬ 
ican  judges,  lawyers,  physicians,  college  professors,  and 
bishops  convinced.  Morse’s  telegraph  ridiculed  in  Congress 
in  1843.  President  Lincoln,  United  States  Senators,  and  Rep¬ 
resentatives  in  Congress  converts.  A  prediction  .  148-173 

CHAPTER  VII. 

After  Death — What? 

Why  this  question  has  such  absorbing  interest.  Agreement  of 
Catholics  and  Protestants.  Where  are  heaven  and  hell  ? 
Jeremy  Taylor,  D.  D.,  Jonathan  Edwards,  D.  D.,  Nathaniel 
Emmons,  D.  D.,  and  Rev.  Thomas  Bolton,  on  the  happiness  of 
the  elect  in  view  of  the  torments  of  reprobates.  Hell  as  de¬ 
scribed  by  Dr.  Edwards,  Rev.  Charles  Spurgeon,  and  Rev. 
J.  Furniss.  Doom  of  the  majority.  Romish  purgatory. 
Priestly  origin  of  hell  and  purgatory.  Description  of  pagan 
hells  from  Rev.  W.  R.  Alger.  Anguish  of  Rev.  Albert 
Barnes  and  Saurin.  Dr.  Whedon  and  the  quaint  Scotch 
epitaph.  Popular  notions  of  hell  irrational,  but  the  doctrine 
of  future  punishment  is  not.  What  constitutes  heaven  and 
hell.  The  true  idea  of  punishment.  The  ideal  heaven.  The 
future  life  a  counterpart  of  this.  Heaven  and  hell  depend 


Synopsis  of  Contents.  ix 

upon  character.  The  true  answer  to  After  death  — what?  is 
interrogative:  In  life — what? . 174-196 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Science  and  Theology. 

Both  imperfect.  Science  and  religion  defined.  Not  antago¬ 
nistic.  Scientists  opposed  to  each  other.  Tyndall  and 
Renan  on  religion.  The  Church  as  an  institution  a  com¬ 
parative  failure.  Matthew  Arnold  on  religion.  The  dogma 
of  total  depravity  an  unscientific  myth.  Logical  consequence, 
the  fall  of  dogmatic  theology  as  a  system.  The  redemptive 
contrivance  founded  on  the  fall  of  Adam,  and  must  have  the 
same  fate.  Likewise,  the  dogma  of  sacred  order  of  priests. 
Vicarious  atonement  through  blood  of  pagan  origin,  and 
thoroughly  unphilosophical.  Material  resurrection,  literal 
hell-torments,  and  other  assumptions  of  dogmatic  theology 
must  fall  with  their  foundations.  Demoralizing  influence  of 
the  dogmas  of  total  depravity  and  free  pardon  through  a 
divine  device.  Scepticism  does  not  come  from  opposition 
to  religion,  but  to  theological  dogmas,  which  can  be  sur¬ 
rendered  to  advantage.  Faith  of  the  future  as  to  God,  mira¬ 
cles,  origin  of  man,  heredity,  original  sin,  salvation,  resurrec¬ 
tion,  punishment,  prayer,  public  worship,  priests,  and  the 
Bible . 197-224 


INTRODUCTION. 


A  RELIGIOUS  CRISIS. 

It  was  a  suggestive  remark  that  the  children 
of  Issachar  were  “  men  that  had  understanding 
of  the  times  to  know  what  Israel  ought  to  do  ” 
(i  Chron.  12  :  32).  A  Prophet  who  lived  in 
Nazareth  more  than  eighteen  hundred  years  ago 
is  said  to  have  recognized  the  same  principle  in 
rebuking  his  dull  disciples  for  failing  to  “  discern 
the  signs  of  the  times/'  and  to  anticipate  coming 
events  from  present  circumstances,  just  as  they 
were  accustomed  to  give  probabilities  of  the 
weather  from  appearances  in  the  sky  (Matt. 
16  :  3). 

Men  are  generally  optimists  or  pessimists  ac¬ 
cording  to  constitutional  temperament,  personal 
experience,  or  theological  bias,  but  it  is  the  policy 
of  true  wisdom  to  rise  above  these  influences  and 
to  look  at  things  as  they  really  exist,  and  to  act 
accordingly.  That  man  must  be  comparatively 
blind  who  does  not  know  that  the  theological 
skies  are  at  present  black  with  clouds  of  menace 

xi 


•  • 


Introduction. 


Xll 

and  peril,  and  that  signs  of  devastating  cyclones 
are  visible  in  every  direction,  and,  indeed,  that 
the  work  of  destruction  is  already  going  on  with 
fearful  sweep.  To  drop  the  metaphor,  is  it  not 
evident  that  the  cultured  thought  of  this  age  is 
in  open  antagonism  to  the  prevalent  theological 
dogmas  ?  Matthew  Arnold,  who  needs  no  intro¬ 
duction  to  men  of  reading,  says : 

“The  partisans  of  traditional  religion  in  this  country 
[England]  do  not  know,  I  think,  how  decisively  the 
whole  force  of  progressive  and  liberal  opinion  on  the 
Continent  has  pronounced  against  the  Christian  religion. 
They  do  not  know  how  surely  the  whole  force  of  progress¬ 
ive  and  liberal  opinion  in  England  tends  to  follow,  so  far 
as  traditional  religion  is  concerned,  the  opinion  of  the 
Continent.”  .  .  .  “The  undoubted  tendency  of  liberal 
opinion  is  to  reject  the  whole  anthropomorphic  and  mi¬ 
raculous  religion  of  tradition  as  unsound  and  untenable. 
On  the  Continent  such  opinion  has  rejected  it  already. 

.  .  .  “A  greater  force  of  tradition  in  favor  of  religion  is 
all  which  now  prevents  the  liberal  opinion  of  England 
from  following  the  Continental  opinion.  That  force  is 
not  of  a  nature  to  be  permanent,  and  it  will  not,  in  fact, 
hold  out  long.” 

It  must  be  admitted  that  this  drifting  away 
from  the  ancient  fetichism,  as  now  represented 
in  a  perverted  theology,  is  not  confined  to  the 
scholastic  classes,  but,  as  appears  from  an  official 
report  made  to  the  Registrar-General  of  England, 
the  masses  of  the  working  population  are  drift¬ 
ing  in  the  same  direction,  and  are  becoming  thor¬ 
oughly  estranged  from  religious  institutions  in 


Introduction. 


•  •  • 


xm 

their  theological  aspects.  Every  observing  man 
must  know  that  what  is  true  of  Europe  is  true 
of  America. 

A  distinguished  Scotch  Presbyterian  minister, 
in  a  recent  public  discourse  to  a  Young  Men’s 
Christian  Association,  said: 

“The  great,  the  mighty,  the  wise,  are  not  with  us.  The 
best  thought,  the  widest  knowledge,  and  the  deepest  phil¬ 
osophy  have  discarded  our  Church.  They  detest  what 
they  call  the  inhumanities  of  our  creed.  They  step  out 
into  speculative  Atheism,  for  they  can  breathe  freer  there.’’ 
.  .  .  “They  shun  us  because  of  our  ignorant  misconcep¬ 
tions  and  persistent  misrepresentations  of  heaven  and 
man  and  God.’’ 

Even  the  conservative  Dr.  Richard  S.  Storrs 
of  Brooklyn,  in  a  discourse  delivered  to  a  similar 
association,  said : 

“There  is  a  fatal  tendency  to  scepticism  and  unbelief 
which  threatens  to  sap  the  foundations  of  society  itself. 
It  pervades  the  literature  of  the  day,  it  stands  behind  our 
science,  and  it  is  broadly  proclaimed  from  the  rostrum.” 

Similar  quotations  might  be  made  from  sev¬ 
eral  cautious  ministers  of  various  denominations, 
and  a  whole  volume  might  be  filled  with  lugu¬ 
brious  lamentations  over  the  decline  of  religion 
from  the  utterances  of  all  the  great  ecclesiastical 
bodies. 

Every  close  observer  knows  that  multitudes 
of  people  in  this  country  are  rapidly  drifting 
toward  Materialism  and  Agnosticism.  An  ex- 


XIV 


Introduction. 


governor  of  Pennsylvania,  in  a  recent  college 
address,  mentioned  the  fact  of  the  sceptical  tend¬ 
encies  of  science,  and  called  upon  the  learned 
professors  to  prepare  to  meet  the  emergency. 

CLERICAL  RESPONSIBILITY. 

That  the  professional  clergy  are  largely  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  prevailing  scepticism  seems  never  to 
have  occurred  to  them,  and  but  few  of  the  laity 
have  had  courage  enough  to  say  what  they 
think.  Meanwhile,  the  work  of  disintegration 
goes  on.  Intelligent  men  and  women  are  drift¬ 
ing  away  from  the  dogmas  of  myth  and  supersti¬ 
tion,  and  the  falsities  of  legend  are  scouted  by 
the  conclusions  of  true  science  and  the  deduc¬ 
tions  of  enlightened  reason.  Not  one  minister 
in  a  thousand  “  discerns  the  signs  of  the  times  ” 
or  is  prepared  for  the  crisis.  Few  pastors  ever 
read  anything  beyond  their  own  denominational 
literature.  Their  education  is  partial,  one-sided 
— professional.  They  cling  to  mediaeval  super¬ 
stitions  with  the  desperate  grasp  of  drowning 
men.  The  great  majority  of  the  clergy  are 
not  men  of  broad  minds  and  wide  and  deep 
research,  and  have  not  the  ability  to  meet  the 
vexed  questions  of  to-day. 

CLERICAL  INSINCERITY. 

But  ministers  who  know  more  than  they  open¬ 
ly  admit  are  not  a  few.  Insincerity  in  the  Pulpit 


Introduction. 


XV 


is  the  title  of  an  able  essay  recently  published  in 
the  North  American  Review ,  from  the  facile  pen 
of  Dr.  Edward  Everett  Hale,  which  caused  great 
squirming  among  the  clergy,  though  it  did  not 
tell  more  than  half  the  truth. 

The  Rev.  Philips  Brooks,  the  popular  Episcopal 
orator  of  Boston,  has  admitted  in  these  words, 
in  the  Princeton  Review ,  what  Dr.  Hale  charged 
regarding  clerical  disingenuousness : 

“A  large  acquaintance  with  clerical  life  has  led  me  to 
think  that  almost  any  company  of  clergymen  talking 
freely  to  each  other  will  express  opinions  which  would 
greatly  surprise,  and  at  the  same  time  greatly  relieve,  the 
congregations  who  ordinarily  listen  to  these  ministers.”  .  .  . 
“How  many  men  in  the  ministry  to-day  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  which  our  fathers  held,  and 
how  many  of  us  have  frankly  told  the  people  that  we  do 
not  believe  it?”  .  .  .  “  How  many  of  us  hold  that  the  ever¬ 
lasting  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  a  clear  and  certain 
truth  of  revelation  ?  But  how  many  of  us  who  do  not 
hold  it  have  ever  said  a  word  ?”  .  .  .  ‘‘There  must  be  no 
lines  of  orthodoxy  inside  the  lines  of  truth.  Men  find 
that  you  are  playing  with  them,  and  will  not  believe  you 
even  when  you  are  in  earnest.”  .  .  .  ‘‘The  minister  who 
tries  to  make  people  believe  that  which  he  questions  in 
order  to  keep  them  from  questioning  what  he  believes, 
knows  very  little  about  the  certain  workings  of  the  human 
heart,  and  has  no  real  faith  in  truth  itself.  I  think  a  great 
many  teachers  and  parents  are  now  in  just  this  condi¬ 
tion.” 

Professor  Fisher,  the  orthodox  champion  of 
Yale  College,  has  recently  admitted  in  the  North 
American  Review  that  at  least  one  of  the  causes 


XVI 


Introduction. 


of  the  decline  of  clerical  authority  and  influence 
is  the  increased  intelligence  of  the  laity.  If  the 
people  cannot  get  the  truth  from  the  pulpit,  they 
will  seek  it  from  the  platform  and  the  press.  It 
is  no  longer  to  be  hidden  in  cloisters  and  theo¬ 
logical  seminaries,  but  it  is  to  be  proclaimed 
from  housetops  and  in  language  understood  in 
every-day  life.  It  is  a  suggestive  fact  that  some 
of  the  ablest  theological  works  of  modern  times 
have  been  written  by  laymen. 

CLERICAL  EMBARRASSMENTS. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  modern  pulpiteer  is  in 
terror  of  canonical  thumbscrews  in  the  form  of 
prosecution  for  heresy  and  the  loss  of  good 
standing  and  official  patronage  and  preferment. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  cannot  be  indifferent  to 
the  prepossessions  and  prejudices  of  his  parish¬ 
ioners,  while  he  is  dependent  upon  them  for  a 
common  livelihood  for  himself  and  his  family. 
The  presence,  in  every  congregation,  of  the  ex¬ 
tremes  of  ancient  orthodoxy  and  modern  liberal¬ 
ism  makes  the  task  of  the  preacher  embarrassing 
in  the  extreme.  It  would  be  amusing  indeed,  if 
it  were  not  so  humiliating,  to  see  the  popular 
Sunday  orator  balancing  between  what  he  does 
and  does  not  believe,  for  fear  of  possible  conse¬ 
quences.  Professional  standing,  sectarian  habits 
of  thought,  false  pride  of  opinion,  and  pecuniary 


Introduction. 


XVII 


dependence  are  shackles  that  now  encumber  the 
free,  fearless,  and  independent  march  of  the  cleri¬ 
cal  corps. 

The  position  occupied  by  many  pastors  is 
most  embarrassing,  not  to  say  humiliating,  de¬ 
grading,  and  demoralizing,  and  they  deserve 
sympathy.  But  many  of  them  are  presuming 
too  much  upon  the  ignorance  and  credulity  of 
the  masses.  There  is  a  crisis  at  hand,  and  it 
will  be  found  that  the  people  are  in  advance  of 
their  priests.  Wise  ones  will  not  much  longer 
stultify  themselves  by  attempting  to  defend  the 
silly  superstitions  of  the  Dark  Ages,  but  will 
yield  to  the  urgent  demand  for  the  revision  of 
creeds.  The  people  are  ready  for  it,  and  so  are 
many  clergymen  who  have  not  yet  had  the  cour¬ 
age  to  admit  the  fact — except  among  their  con¬ 
fidential  friends. 

Public  teachers  of  religion  have  dwarfed  them¬ 
selves  and  blunted  their  own  moral  sense  by  the 
suppression  of  the  true  and  the  suggestion  of 
the  false,  until  they  have  been  deceived  by  their 
own  deception.  The  people  are  discovering  the 
imposition,  and  the  reaction  must  be  terrific. 
The  fear  now  is,  that  the  pendulum  will  swing 
violently  into  the  opposite  extreme.  The  work 
of  destruction  is  now  going  forward  like  the 
sweeping  of  the  tempest  or  the  tread  of  an  earth¬ 
quake,  and  the  work  of  construction  must  be 

B 


xviii  Introduction. 

prosecuted  without  fear  or  favor,  and  in  no  hesi¬ 
tating  or  ambiguous  language. 

In  the  discussions  upon  which  we  are  to  enter 
this  principle  will  be  kept  in  constant  view :  viz. 
to  tear  down  only  to  build  up.  It  may  be  found 
necessary  to  abandon  many  a  cherished  dogma 
of  our  fathers,  but  at  the  same  time  it  may  be 
shown  that  by  so  doing  we  only  lay  aside  much 
that  has  always  been  a  dead  weight  to  true  re¬ 
ligion. 

CHANGE  OF  CREED  DIFFICULT. 

A  long  and  varied  experience  and  observation 
have  given  the  author  a  consciousness  of  the  ag¬ 
onizing  pain  that  must  be  endured  by  a  sensi¬ 
tive  man  as  he  realizes  that  the  foundations  of  a 
dearly-cherished  religious  faith  are  crumbling 
beneath  his  feet,  and  that  he  must  find  more 
rational  ground  or  be  plunged  into  the  abyss  of 
Atheism  or  Agnosticism.  The  difficulty,  amount¬ 
ing  in  some  cases  to  almost  an  impossibility,  of 
casting  aside  a  system  of  religious  belief  in 
which  one  finds  himself  settled,  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  the  large  majority  of  men  live  and  die 
in  the  faith  in  which  they  are  born  and  educated, 
however  absurd  and  contradictory  it  may  be. 
Given  the  locality  of  one’s  birth  and  the  faith  of 
his  ancestors,  and  you  can  almost  always  divine 
what  one  believes.  There  has  been  very  little 


Introduction. 


xix 


independent  and  rational  thinking  on  religious 
questions,  but  happily  it  is  on  the  increase.  But 
when  men  begin  to  “  reason  on  righteousness, 
temperance,  and  judgment  to  come”  (Acts  24  : 
25),  and  even  “reason  together”  with  God  (Isa. 
I  :  18),  and  to  act  upon  the  principle  suggested 
by  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  to  “judge  for  your¬ 
selves  what  is  right”  (Luke  12  :  57),  they  are 
sure  to  find  that  true  religion  is  not  a  synonym 
of  superstition — that  it  is  not  necessary  to  sacri¬ 
fice  sound  reason  for  a  blind  faith,  even  if  some 
of  the  dogmas  of  priestcraft  are  shown  to  be 
cunning  perversions  of  an  effete  paganism. 
When  a  man  has  found  a  religion  that  is  in 
harmony  with  the  order  of  the  universe,  that 
requires  the  highest  morality  and  inspires  the 
most  unselfish  “enthusiasm  of  humanity,”  and 
he  feels  always  ready  to  give  a  reason  for  the 
hope  that  is  in  him”  (1  Pet.  3  :  15),  then,  and 
then  only,  will  he  rise  to  the  dignity  of  true 
manhood. 


SCOPE  OF  THIS  BOOK. 

The  character  and  object  of  the  discussions  that 
are  to  follow  can  be  inferred  from  what  has  now 
been  said.  There  is  a  true  religion  and  there  is 
a  true  science,  and  between  them  there  is  no 
necessary  antagonism.  The  real  assaults  of  sci¬ 
ence  are  on  the  accretions,  perversions,  and  super- 


XX 


Introduction. 


stitions  of  theology  and  priestcraft.  Against 
these  assaults  the  orthodox  clergy  are  power¬ 
less.  They  cannot  answer  the  objections  of  sci¬ 
ence  to  their  absurd  dogmas.  The  ecclesiastical 
ship  must  be  lightened,  or  it  must  go  down  in 
the  pitiless  storm.  That  it  can  with  advantage 
throw  overboard  very  much  that  has  been  deemed 
important  to  the  success  of  the  voyage  and  the 
safety  of  the  ship  can  clearly  be  demonstrated. 
Let  the  images  and  fetiches  of  dogmatic  the¬ 
ology  be  broken  and  destroyed,  and  the  essen¬ 
tial  truth  of  religion  will  only  shine  forth  more 
refulgently.  Let  not  materialists  and  agnostics 
suppose  that  when  they  have  vanquished  the 
superstitions  of  dogmatic  creeds  they  have  anni¬ 
hilated  the  religious  nature  of  man,  and  destroyed 
that  principle  of  reverence,  veneration,  and  wor¬ 
shipfulness  which  is  just  as  much  a  part  of  the 
human  constitution  as  any  other  faculty  of  mind 
or  body.  Many  conservative  and  timid  persons 
will  be  pained  by  some  of  these  utterances. 
They  have  no  faith  in  human  nature,  no  faith  in 
any  religion  but  the  religion  of  supernatural 
authority,  no  faith  in  fundamental  truth.  And 
even  when  truth  has  been  discovered,  moral 
cowards  do  not  think  it  judicious  to  publish  it, 
at  least  to  the  masses,  lest  their  blind  faith  be  un¬ 
settled  and  they  rush  headlong  to  speedy  ruin. 

Away  with  the  old  fraud  of  the  exoteric  and 


Introduction. 


xxi 


esoteric — truth  for  the  few  and  lies  for  the  com¬ 
mon  people  !  Let  the  whole  truth  be  published, 
for  its  own  inherent  sake,  regardless  of  imme¬ 
diate  consequences.  The  ultimate  result  is  not 
doubtful.  If  the  false  heavens  of  dogmatic  the¬ 
ology  fall,  so  much  the  better.  Let  them  fall ! 
The  people  have  a  right  to  demand  the  whole 
truth,  and  they  will  have  it  in  spite  of  the  timid¬ 
ity  of  their  public  teachers.  The  day  of  conceal¬ 
ment  and  suppression  has  passed  away.  The 
schoolmaster  is  abroad.  The  platform  is  free, 
if  the  pulpit  is  barricaded.  The  discoveries  of 
modern  science  are  pouring  floods  of  light  upon 
dark  subjects  which  have  long  been  deemed  too 
sacred  for  investigation. 

Not  one  article  of  popular  faith  will  be  at¬ 
tacked  in  these  discussions  without  an  honest 
and  loving  effort  to  give  something  better  in  its 
place. 

In  the  mean  time,  let  no  one  be  anxious  about 
the  foundations  of  true  religion.  Even  the 
apostle  Paul  said,  “  We  can  do  nothing  against 
the  truth  but  for  the  truth”  (2  Cor.  13  :  8).  If 
its  principles  are  not  ineradicable  in  human  na¬ 
ture,  it  is  of  no  account  to  man. 

THE  TRUE  STANDPOINT. 

We  have  chosen  to  discuss  living  questions 
of  to-day  from  the  human  standpoint.  We  be- 


xxii  Introduction . 

gin  with  man,  the  natural  instead  of  the  super¬ 
natural.  If  there  be  anything  supernatural,  we 
can  best  understand  it  through  the  visible  and 
tangible.  The  real  history  of  man  is  the  true 
history  of  religion.  We  take  as  our  motto, 
Humanity — Heretofore  and  Hereafter. 
What  are  we?  What  is  our  origin?  Where 
did  we  come  from?  Whither  are  we  going? 
What  is  our  destination  ?  These  questions  are 
living  questions  of  to-day,  and  all  thoughtful 
persons  are  interested  in  them.  The  discussion 
of  these  inquiries  will  involve  the  incidental  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  whole  circle  of  religious  dogma 
and  duty.  With  a  rational  mind  all  truth  is  con- 
notative,  connected  like  the  links  of  a  chain. 

The  credibility  of  the  dominant  theology  is 
involved  in  the  investigations  upon  which  we 
now  enter.  We  may  not  have  all  the  truth. 
We  have  often  been  obliged  to  revise  dearly- 
cherished  opinions,  and  further  revisions  may 
be  found  necessary.  We  may  be  wiser  to-mor¬ 
row  than  we  are  to-day.  Science  has  not  yet 
spoken  its  final  word,  neither  has  rational  re¬ 
ligion.  To  give  the  best  light  and  the  purest 
truth  we  have  to-day,  without  regard  to  what 
we  thought  yesterday  or  may  think  to-morrow, 
is  the  highest  duty  of  an  honest  man.  The 
fool  sticks  to  his  folly  and  never  changes  his 
mind;  he  has  none  to  change.  A  wise,  consist- 


Introduction.  xxiii 

ent  man  often  has  cause  for  putting  away  child¬ 
ish  things  when  he  reaches  the  maturity  of  true 
mental  manhood.  A  man  is  to  be  pitied  who 
tenaciously  holds  the  opinions  of  his  childhood 
and  of  his  ancestors  for  fear  of  being  thought 
fickle  and  changeable.  The  representative  men 
of  all  ages  have  always  been  deemed  heretics 
and  infidels  by  the  bigoted,  lazy,  and  stupid 
croakers  of  their  times.  The  heretics  of  one 
age  are  often  the  acknowledged  oracles  of  the 
next.  Those  who  are  denounced  as  “infidels” 
in  one  generation  are  often  canonized  as  saints 
by  succeeding  ones.  Universal  history  “asserts 
eternal  providence  and  vindicates  the  ways  of 
God  to  man.” 

“Ever  the  truth  comes  uppermost, 

And  ever  is  justice  done.” 


Man-Whence  and  Whither? 


i. 

WHAT  IS  MAN? 

'  THYSELF!”  was  the  laconic  motto 

inscribed  in  golden  Greek  upon  the  por¬ 
tico  of  the  gorgeous  temple  of  Delphi  five  cen¬ 
turies  before  the  Christian  era.  “  The  chief 
study  of  mankind  should  be  man,”  was  the  wise 
exclamation  of  Alexander  Pope,  the  great  Eng¬ 
lish  poet  and  essayist,  two  hundred  years  ago. 
To  these  aphorisms  every  thoughtful  man  gives 
a  hearty  assent  as  he  fully  realizes  that  self- 
knowledge  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  true 
knowledge.  Certain  it  is,  that  in  an  intelligent 
discussion  of  questions  relating  to  the  origin 
and  destination  of  man  we  are  logically  bound, 
first,  to  consider  the  question,  What  is  Man? 
To  this  question  the  anatomist  would  p-ive  a 

o 

learned  disquisition  on  the  structure  of  the  hu¬ 
man  frame,  with  an  appropriate  name  for  every 
part;  the  physiologist  would  confuse  and  con¬ 
found  ordinary  minds  with  high-sounding  words 

l 


2  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 

portraying  the  functions  of  the  different  parts ;  the 
histologist,  microscope  in  hand,  would  enter  into 
minor  details  that  would  cause  the  brain  to  swirl 
with  delirium  ;  and  the  chemist  would  follow  up 
the  work  by  reducing  all  that  can  be  seen  or  felt 
or  tasted  of  the  human  form  to  its  sixty-five 
primal  elements,  so  that  all  that  is  left  of  the 
physical  form  is  nothing  or  next  to  nothing. 

That  man  has  a  material  body  very  similar  in 
many  things  to  the  brute  creation  will  not  be 
denied,  and  that  he  has  instincts  in  common 
with  them  is  equally  evident ;  but  whether  man 
is  anything  more  than  an  animal  of  more  than 
ordinary  development  is  a  question  of  vital  in¬ 
terest — one  to  which  every  person  of  thoughtful 
mind  should  be  able  to  give  an  intelligent  an¬ 
swer  in  this  age  of  materialistic  science  and 
agnostic  philosophy. 

Several  pretentious  volumes,  with  numerous 
engravings,  have  been  published  to  show  that 
the  embryo  human  body  at  an  early  stage  can¬ 
not  be  distinguished  from  the  embryo  fish,  horse, 
dog  or  hog. 

Huxley  says  :  “  It  is  very  long  before  the 
body  of  the  young  human  being  can  be  distin¬ 
guished  from  that  of  the  young  puppy.”  Other 
writers  of  equal  intelligence  maintain  that  these 
resemblances  are  largely  fanciful  and  imaginary. 
There  are  wide  gaps  between  the  brain  of  the 


What  is  Man? 


3 


lowest  human  being  and  the  highest  ape;  and 
one  learned  writer  has  pointed  out  fifteen  par¬ 
ticulars  in  which  the  brain  of  a  man  differs  from 
that  of  the  highest  brute.  The  theory  that  the 
human  embryo  at  a  certain  stage  has  the  gill  of 
the  fish  has  been  exploded  by  Dr.  Wilford  Hall 
in  his  Problem  of  Human  Life.  According  to 
certain  engravings  in  a  popular  work  by  Pro¬ 
fessor  Haeckel,  a  tortoise  is  shown  to  have  been 
evolved  from  man,  instead  of  man  from  the 
tortoise — the  renowned  materialistic  writer,  or 
his  engraver,  having  placed  the  tail  of  the  tor¬ 
toise  upon  the  human  embryo,  and  the  human 
head  upon  the  foetal  tortoise!  The  common 
argument  for  the  animal  origin  of  man  from  the 
supposed  rudimentary  tail,  the  simple  elongation 
of  the  spinal  column,  is  very  far-fetched,  and  is 
simply  a  matter  of  merriment  with  many  learned 
anatomists.  But  we  must  not  be  drawn  aside 
from  our  main  object  of  investigation  by  ques¬ 
tions  of  minor  importance  which  have  no  essen¬ 
tial  bearing  upon  the  matter  directly  at  issue. 

It  is  admitted  that  man  has  a  material  organ¬ 
ization — that  in  many  things  his  body  is  very 
much  like  the  corporeal  forms  of  irrational 
animals.  How  much,  or  in  what  particulars, 
the  human  body  resembles  or  differs  from  the 
other  animal  organisms,  is  not  the  problem  that 
we  seek  to  solve.  The  question  is,  What  is 


4  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

Man  ?  Is  he  a  mere  animal  ?  Is  he  so  much 
like  common  animals  as  to  make  the  inference 
justifiable  that  the  same  destiny  awaits  him? 
Let  us  inquire  into  some  of  those  things  in 
which  it  cannot  be  denied  that  man  differs  from 
the  brute. 

There  is  a  wide  difference  in  the  degree  of 
intelligence  and  self-helpfulness  between  a  human 
being  and  a  brute  at  the  time  of,  and  a  long  while 
after,  birth  ;  and  in  the  struggle  for  existence  the 
advantage  is  largely  in  favor  of  the  brute.  Man 
at  birth  is  the  most  ignorant,  helpless  and  de¬ 
pendent  of  all  beings.  He  has  no  natural  cov¬ 
ering,  like  the  lamb  or  pig,  cannot  walk  or 
change  his  position,  does  not  know  his  mother, 
cannot  seek  or  provide  his  own  food,  and  would 
as  soon  grasp  a  serpent  as  a  ribbon,  and  would 
utterly  perish  but  for  the  constant  supervision 
of  others  for  months  and  years  of  his  early  life. 
The  chicken,  the  kitten,  the  puppy  and  the  pig 
are  brighter,  more  intelligent  and  less  depend¬ 
ent  at  birth  than  the  human  babe.  If  we  should 
judge  by  comparison  in  the  first  six  months,  we 
should  say  that  the  brute  is  the  superior  animal. 
This  does  not  look  as  if  man  is  a  descendant  of 
common  animals,  and  suggests  some  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  “  natural  selection  ”  and  the  “  sur¬ 
vival  of  the  fittest.” 

But  the  scale  soon  turns.  With  almost  infinite 


What  is  Man  ? 


5 


care  and  pains  the  human  parent  commences  and 
carries  forward  the  education  of  the  offspring  ac¬ 
cording  to  his  or  her  capacity  and  attainments, 
and  the  puling  child  soon  emerges  from  its  blank 
ignorance  and  semi-idiocy,  and  evinces  more  or 
less  desire  and  capacity  to  obtain  knowledge. 
The  common  animal  transmits  to  its  descend¬ 
ants,  without  any  thought  or  intelligent  purpose, 
a  certain  degree  of  intelligence  called  instinct, 
so  that  the  puppy  and  the  pig  soon  know  as 
much  as  their  parents,  and  indeed  as  much  as 
any  and  all  of  their  ancestors  have  known  for 
long  centuries  of  the  past.  But  the  human 
parent  transmits  none  of  his  knowledge  or  at¬ 
tainments.  The  child  of  the  philosopher  is  as 
ignorant  as  the  child  of  a  peasant;  and  if  man 
has  instinct  at  all,  it  is  inferior  to  that  of  the 
bird  and  the  bullock.  Here  comes  in  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  brute  instinct  and  human  intelli¬ 
gence.  The  common  animal  involuntarily  and 
unconsciously  gives  to  its  descendants  all  the 
ancestral  wisdom  ever  possessed  by  its  species, 
while  the  human  parent  only  transmits  a  desire 
and  capacity  to  acquire  knowledge.  The  one 
we  call  instinct,  the  other  intelligence ;  and  the 
difference  between  these  suggests  an  essential 
and  insuperable  difference  between  a  brute 
and  a  man,  the  latter  having  a  mental  consti¬ 
tution  or  capacity  to  teach  and  to  be  taught  to 


6 


Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


an  indefinite  extent,  which  the  former  has 
not. 

Then  we  soon  find  in  man  a  self-conscious¬ 
ness,  a  sense  of  his  individuality  and  personality, 
which  does  not  belong  to  brutes.  The  Ego  is 
purely  human.  We  cannot  conceive  of  a  brute 
using  a  personal  pronoun,  even  if  he  could 
make  himself  understood  by  vocal  utterances. 

This  sense  of  personality  in  man,  the  sense  of 
independent  being,  soon  leads  to  self-inspection, 
introversion,  and  a  desire  to  know  himself — to 
know  what  he  is,  to  analyze  his  own  powers  and 
capacities,  to  inquire  into  his  own  origin  and 
destiny.  None  of  these  questions  ever  trouble 
dogs  or  horses,  apes  or  orangs.  That  mere  ani¬ 
mals  should  ever  think  of  such  things  is  not 
supposable. 

A  moral  sense,  a  conscience,  an  abstract  con¬ 
ception  of  the  essential  difference  between  right 
and  wrong,  is  soon  found  to  be  a  human  charac¬ 
teristic,  which  indicates  that  man  is  something 
more  than  an  animal.  This  principle  is  innate 
in  him,  exists  to  some  extent  among  the  most 
ignorant  and  degraded  of  the  human  race,  and  is 
susceptible  of  high  cultivation ;  while  it  does 
not  even  have  the  shadow  of  existence  in  the 
inferior  creatures.  The  bull  will  gore  to  death 
his  kind  keeper,  the  horse  will  drive  his  iron- 
bound  hoof  into  the  temple  of  his  groom,  and 


What  is  Man  ? 


7 


animals  commit  every  grade  of  cruelty  and  in¬ 
gratitude  without  compunction  or  self-reproach. 
This  moral  sense  in  man  extends  to  the  finest 
principles  of  casuistry,  and  comprehends  the 
spirit  and  intent  of  actions,  as  well  as  actions 
themselves,  and  requires  the  strict  regulation  of 
the  thoughts,  desires  and  affections. 

In  connection  with  this  high  ethical  sense — 
and  probably  anterior  to  its  development — man 
has  an  intuition,  or  inward  and  spontaneous  per¬ 
ception  and  recognition,  of  some  Intelligence 
and  Power  higher  than  himself,  and  an  inherent 
disposition  to  worship  that  Being.  All  of  us 
are  more  or  less  familiar  with  the  manner  in 
which  some  persons  attempt  to  account  for 
these  things.  It  is  easy  to  talk  of  fear,  and  su¬ 
perstition,  and  fetichism,  and  the  like,  but  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  man  has  a  natural  sense 
of  the  divine,  the  supernatural,  the  spiritual,  and 
that  these  faculties  proclaim  him  superior  to  the 
brute  creation,  which  has  none  of  these  sublime 
perceptions  and  aspirations. 

A  strong  desire  and  hope  for  continued  future 
existence  is  another  human  attribute  which  dis¬ 
tinguishes  him  from  mere  animals.  Such  de¬ 
sires  and  hopes  never  exist  in  an  ox  or  an  ass, 
nor  in  an  ape  or  a  monkey.  In  humanity  they 
are  universal  and  ineradicable,  and  can  only  be 
accounted  for  as  the  manifestations  of  an  innate 


8  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


spiritual  nature,  which,  conscious  of  its  capacity 
for  unlimited  progress  and  elevation,  can  be  sat¬ 
isfied  with  nothing  short  of  immortality.  In 
these  holy  hopes  and  heavenly  aspirations  mere 
animals  have  no  share;  and  he  is  no  true  man, 
whatever  his  intellectual  capacity  may  be,  who 
has  extinguished  within  himself  this  supernal 
flame  of  divinity. 

And  then,  as  if  to  utilize  and  give  efficiency 
and  full  exercise  to  his  wonderful  endowments 
above  the  animal  creation,  we  find  man  possess¬ 
ing  the  strange  gift  of  language.  Aristotle  well 
said:  “Animals  have  voice,  but  man  alone  has 
speech and  Prof.  Max  Muller  is  right  in  re¬ 
garding  “  language  as  the  true  barrier  between 
man  and  beast.” 

There  is  no  more  interesting  study  than  the 
origin  and  progress  of  language.  It  is  only 
necessary,  in  this  connection,  to  say  that  the 
more  profoundly  the  many  distinct  languages 
among  men  are  analyzed  and  the  farther 
back  they  are  traced,  the  stronger  is  the  evi¬ 
dence  of  their  independent  origin  in  the  in¬ 
tellectual  and  spiritual  pre-eminence  of  man 
over  the  inferior  orders  of  animals.  No  man 
has  written  more  intelligently  upon  this  subject 
than  Prof.  Muller  of  the  great  English  Univer¬ 
sity.  It  is  most  marvellous  that  this  distin¬ 
guishing  attribute  of  man  should  have  been  so 


What  is  Man  ? 


9 


foolishly  and  voluminously  used  in  the  vain  at¬ 
tempt  to  belittle  man  to  the  virtual  level  of  a 
chattering  ape.  While  man  has  the  gift  of  lan¬ 
guage  it  will  be  impossible  to  make  him  out  a 
mere  animal. 

From  the  points  made  in  the  foregoing  para¬ 
graphs  the  suggestion  is  natural  and  rational 
that  man  has  certain  attributes  which  distin¬ 
guish  him  from  the  brute ;  and  further,  that  he 
is  distinct  from,  superior  to  and  independent  of, 
his  external,  visible  material  organization.  The 
brute  has  the  vital  principle  of  life  in  common 
with  man,  but  the  contrast  between  their  mental 
and  moral  endowments  is  almost  infinite.  The 
dog,  the  horse,  the  lion  and  the  elephant  show  a 
degree  of  intelligence  amounting  to  a  glimmer 
of  rationality,  but  it  is  so  inferior  in  degree  as 
to  become  a  difference  in  kind.  No  animal  but 
man  has  ever  learned  the  use  of  fire  and  tools, 
does  not  prepare  and  season  food,  nor  use  other 
animals  to  lessen  its  own  exertions.  The  cor¬ 
poreal  organization  of  the  brute  is  very  similar 
to  that  of  man  in  complexity  and  perfection,  so 
that  man’s  superior  mental  and  moral  qualities 
cannot  be  the  result  of  mere  material  organiza¬ 
tion  ;  and,  moreover,  the  organization  of  the 
human  body  is  sometimes  as  complete  after 
death  as  before.  It  is  therefore  evident  that 
some  other  way  must  be  found  to  account  for 


io  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


the  divine  endowments  of  humanity.  The  intel¬ 
ligent  and  moral  Ego  called  man  must  be  an 
entity ,  a  real  essence,  an  actual  existence,  a  per¬ 
sonality  superior  to  and  independent  of  his  phys¬ 
ical  organism. 

This  position  is  evident  from  the  well-known 
fact  that  man’s  physical  organization  undergoes 
many  and  wonderful  changes  from  infancy  to 
old  age  without  affecting  his  personal  identity. 
Scientific  writers  allege  that  a  complete  change 
of  material  in  the  human  body  occurs  once  in 
every  seven  years,  so  that  a  man  of  threescore 
years  and  ten  has  had  ten  new  bodies,  entirely 
distinct  in  material.  Whatever  may  be  said  as 
to  the  frequency  of  these  changes,  no  man  of 
education  will  deny  that  these  material  changes 
do  take  place  several  times  in  the  course  of  an 
ordinary  life — that  the  processes  of  waste  and 
supply  are  continually  going  on.  And  yet  the 
real  man  is  not  affected  by  these  bodily  changes. 
From  birth  to  death  he  preserves  his  personal 
identity — the  same  mental  and  moral  character¬ 
istics,  the  same  desires,  hopes  and  fears ;  and 
hence  it  must  logically  follow  that  the  intelligent 
Ego  is  superior  to  and  independent  of  his  mate¬ 
rial  organization. 

This  principle  is  further  illustrated  by  the 
well-known  law  of  hereditary  descent.  Even 
the  physical  resemblance  of  the  offspring  to  the 


What  is  Man? 


1 1 

parent  cannot  be  accounted  for  without  admit¬ 
ting  that  man  is  something  more  than  a  physical 
organism.  The  atom  from  which  the  human 
body  develops  is  only  about  the  one-hundred- 
and-twenty-fifth  or  the  one-hundred-and-fiftieth 
part  of  an  inch  in  diameter,  and  is  furnished 
exclusively  by  the  mother ;  and  the  additional 
part  contributed  by  the  father  is  so  minute 
that  it  can  only  be  closely  studied  by  the  most 
powerful  microscope.  After  the  conjunction 
the  mother  furnishes  from  her  own  body  all 
the  material  of  which  the  infant  body  is  com¬ 
posed,  and  yet  the  child  often  resembles  the 
father  rather  than  the  mother,  when,  on  the 
hypothesis  that  man  is  a  mere  physical  organ¬ 
ism,  he  should  resemble  the  mother  a  thousand 
times  more.  And  then  if  the  human  ovule 
differs  in  no  respect  from  that  of  the  inferior 
animals,  as  Darwin  and  his  disciples  assert,  why 
does  one  develop  into  a  man  and  the  other  into 
a  brute?  There  must  be  some  inherent,  essen¬ 
tial,  though  invisible,  difference.  We  talk  of 
blood  relations,  and  our  law-books  have  tables 
and  charts  to  illustrate  the  laws  of  inheritance 
on  the  basis  of  blood  of  the  first,  second,  third 
and  fourth  degrees,  and  yet  not  one  drop — nay, 
not  one  single  corpuscle — of  blood  ever  de¬ 
scends  from  the  grandfather  to  the  grandson, 
and,  strictly  speaking,  not  even  from  the  father 


1 2  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 

to  the  child.  This  is  not  only  evident  from  the 
facts  just  stated,  but  is  corroborated  by  the 
physiological  changes  always  going  on  in  the 
body,  as  already  set  forth. 

The  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  all  hered¬ 
itary  transmissions,  organic  and  mental,  must 
be  referred  to  some  agency  superior  to  mere 
matter  and  quite  independent  of  it.  The  phys¬ 
iological  facts  upon  which  this  argument  is 
based  are  not  imaginary  or  speculative,  but  are 
acknowledged  by  the  highest  authority.  Prof. 
Huxley  says,  in  his  Origin  of  Species  and  Ele¬ 
mentary  Physiology :  “  So  constant  and  universal 
is  this  absorption,  waste  and  reproduction  that 
it  may  be  said  with  perfect  certainty  that  there 
is  left  in  no  one  of  our  bodies  at  the  present 
moment  one-millionth  part  of  the  matter  of 
which  they  were  originally  formed.”  He  also 
admits  that  this  applies  to  our  very  bones. 
These  views  are  maintained  with  equal  explic¬ 
itness  by  Dunglison  and  other  eminent  scien¬ 
tists.  It  will  be  found,  upon  careful  reasoning, 
that  the  mysteries  of  physiology,  the  persistence 
and  fixity  of  species,  the  wonders  of  hereditary 
descent  and  inheritance,  the  transmission  of  cha¬ 
racteristic  traits  and  tendencies,  can  only  be  ex¬ 
plained  by  postulating  the  obvious  fact  that  the 
real  man  is  superior  to,  and  is  comparatively  in¬ 
dependent  of,  his  corporeal  form — that  his  ma- 


What  is  Man  ? 


13 

terial  body  is  an  adjunct,  and  not  the  human 
personality. 

We  have  a  further  intimation  of  the  independ¬ 
ence  and  superiority  of  the  human  intelligence 
over  material  organization  in  the  mysterious 
phenomena  of  somnambulism  and  dreams.  Ele¬ 
mentary  school-books  on  mental  science  and 
philosophy  are  so  full  of  facts  upon  these  sub¬ 
jects  that  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  go  into 
details.  All  thoughtful  persons  know  that  the 
human  intelligence  is  often  most  active  when 
the  physical  senses  are  worn  out  with  fatigue 
and  locked  up  in  profound  slumber.  The  som¬ 
nambulist  performs  mental  tasks  to  which  he  is 
not  competent  when  his  physical  senses  are  in 
full  play.  The  real  human  intelligence  seems 
to  have  its  relaxations  and  amusements,  and  to 
exert  its  higher  faculties  without  restraint,  when 
the  physical  organs  are  in  a  state  of  repose.  It 
is  not  probable  that  the  mind  of  man  ever  grows 
weary  and  exhausted.  Then  there  is  that  strange 
power  of  divining  in  dreams  of  which  Tertullian 
and  other  Christian  Fathers  made  so  much ;  and 
no  one  who  has  the  least  degree  of  historical 
faith  or  of  confidence  in  the  Jewish  and  Chris¬ 
tian  Scriptures  can  doubt  that  many  cases  of 
prevision  in  dreams  have  actually  occurred. 
There  are  also  many  such  cases  reported  in 
modern  times.  Of  the  precise  source  of  these 


14  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


nocturnal  visions  none  can  be  sure,  but  this  does 
not  affect  the  position  that  the  phenomena  of 
somnambulism  and  dreams  show,  at  least  in 
some  cases,  the  independence  of  the  human 
Ego  of  physical  environments. 

A  very  singular  experience  is  recorded  by 
Lord  Brougham,  which  may  be  thus  epitom¬ 
ized:  In  youth  he  had  a  schoolmate  with  whom 
he  often  conversed  regarding  death  and  the 
future  state.  They  promised  each  other  that, 
if  possible,  the  one  dying  first  should  commu¬ 
nicate  with  the  other.  Lord  Brougham  had 

o 

almost  forgotten  his  friend,  who  had  gone  to 
India  in  the  civil  service.  He  was  about  leav¬ 
ing  the  bath  one  day  when,  upon  turning  his 
eyes  toward  the  chair  upon  which  he  had  de¬ 
posited  his  clothes,  he  was  amazed  to  behold  his 
friend  seated  upon  it.  He  called  it  a  vision, 
and  was  very  much  affected  by  it.  Fie  supposed 
he  had  been  asleep  and  dreaming,  but  made  a 
careful  record  of  the  facts  and  date — the  19th 
of  December.  Soon  a  letter  arrived  from  India 

announcing  the  death  of  G - on  December 

19th!  Sixty  years  afterward  Lord  Brougham 
copied  this  statement  from  his  journal,  with 
comments  that  showed  the  deep  impression 
made  upon  his  mind.  This  might  be  called  a 
coincidence  if  modern  times  did  not  furnish 
so  many  similar  examples. 


What  is  Man  ? 


15 


It  is  acknowledged  that  dreams  generally  are 
automatic  and  have  a  physiological  explanation ; 
but  that  some  dreams  show  the  independence 
of  mind  over  matter  is  a  proposition  that  is  sup¬ 
ported  by  many  well-authenticated  facts.  Cases 
are  numerous,  and  beyond  doubt  or  suspicion, 
in  which  the  most  creditable  literary  work  has 
been  performed  when  the  bodily  senses  were  in 
death-like  sleep,  and  the  most  difficult  problems 
have  been  solved  in  the  same  state ;  and  it  is 
simply  ridiculous  to  call  these  exploits  the  result 
of  “  unconscious  cerebration,”  and  to  attempt  to 
account  for  them  by  any  laws  known  to  phys¬ 
iology. 

But  we  now  advance  a  step,  and  attempt  to  show 
by  the  phenomena  observed  in  clairvoyance  and 
clairaudience  that  the  human  personality  is  inde¬ 
pendent  of  its  corporeal  form.  If  man  is  not  capa¬ 
ble  of  seeing  without  the  use  of  his  physical  eyes, 
and  of  seeing  through  objects  absolutely  impene¬ 
trable  by  the  sight  which  passes  through  out¬ 
ward  eyes,  and  at  distances  which  cannot  be 
traversed  by  ordinary  sight,  and  of  hearing  in 
like  manner,  then  human  experience  and  testi¬ 
mony  are  of  no  value.  Deleuze,  a  French  author 
of  high  repute,  says :  “  In  somnambulism  there 
are  developed  faculties  of  which  we  are  deprived 
in  the  ordinary  state,  such  as  seeing  without  the 
aid  of  eyes,  hearing  without  the  aid  of  ears, 


1 6  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


seeing  at  a  distance,  reading  thoughts,”  etc. 
Many  astounding  facts,  authenticated  by  per¬ 
sonal  knowledge  and  experience,  are  given  by 
Henry  George  Atkinson,  joint-author  of  the  Har¬ 
riet  Martineau  Letters ,  also  by  Dr.  Gregory,  pro¬ 
fessor  of  chemistry  in  the  University  of  Edin¬ 
burgh,  and  many  other  European  scientists  of 
renown,  including  a  committee  of  physicians 
appointed  by  the  Royal  Academy  of  Medicine 
in  Paris.  In  a  standard  French  dictionary  of 
medicine,  Rostan,  a  distinguished  professor, 
says  :  “  There  are  few  facts  better  demonstrated 
than  clairvoyance;”  and  then  gives  many  strik¬ 
ing  examples  in  his  own  investigations.  Dr. 
James  R.  Nichols,  author  of  several  scientific 
works  and  now  editor  of  the  Boston  Journal 
of  Chemistry ,  in  his  admirable  book  Whence? 
What?  Where?  says:  “Several  persons  are 
known  to  me  who,  while  in  a  peculiar  condi¬ 
tion  called  ‘  trance,’  can  tell  the  time  by  a  watch 
with  great  accuracy  when  the  hands  are  moved 
to  any  position  on  the  dial,  and  the  watch,  cov¬ 
ered  by  double  cases,  is  wrapped  in  a  napkin. 
The  watch  in  these  instances  may  be  placed  on 
the  back  of  the  head  of  the  person  or  held  in 
the  hand  of  the  experimenter.”  He  relates  the 
following  remarkable  case:  “A  young  lady  of 
the  highest  culture  and  respectability,  connected 
with  the  family  of  a  former  neighbor  and  friend, 


What  is  Man  ? 


17 


has  in  my  presence  recited  whole  pages  of  a 
sermon  as  it  was  written  by  a  clergyman  on  a 
Sunday  morning  in  his  study  half  a  mile  away. 
While  this  recitation  was  proceeding  (the  trans¬ 
action  was  new  and  wholly  unexpected  to  the 
family)  the  father  visited  the  study  of  the  cler¬ 
gyman  and  brought  back  the  manuscript,  with 
ink  scarcely  dry,  and  compared  it  with  the 
words  of  his  daughter  as  I  had  faithfully  taken 
them  from  her  lips.  The  two  were  precisely 
alike,  hardly  differing  in  a  single  word.  In  this 
instance  there  was  no  collusion,  no  trick ;  such 
would  have  been  impossible  if  the  high  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  parties  had  not  forbidden  suspicion. 
Instances  of  this  so-called  ‘  second  sight  ’  are 
plenty  enough,  and  they  rest  on  testimony 
which  silences  incredulity.  They  are,  however, 
not  more  numerous  perhaps  than  instances  of 
exalted  hearing.  Music  has  been  heard  by 
many  persons,  and  every  stage  in  the  progress 
of  a  concert  in  a  distant  city  correctly  de¬ 
scribed.” 

The  author  has  himself  personal  knowledge 
of  many  cases  of  clairvoyance  and  clairaudience. 
He  has  given  much  attention  to  the  case  of 
Miss  Fancher  of  Brooklyn,  and  is  convinced 
that  she  can  see  without  using  her  natural  or 
external  eyes.  She  has  just  completed  a  most 
elaborate  work  of  embroidery  for  a  member  of 


2 


1 8  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 

his  own  household,  requiring  the  most  dexterous 
use  of  the  needle  and  the  combination  of  colors 
of  the  finest  shades,  though  she  has  had  no  use 
of  her  natural  eyes  for  several  years. 

These  facts  are  not  new  or  peculiar  to  mod¬ 
ern  times ;  history  is  full  of  them.  Swedenborg 
saw  and  described  the  progress  of  the  fire  that 
came  within  a  few  feet  of  destroying  his  own 
house,  and  accurately  portrayed  the  scene  in 
detail,  though  he  was  more  than  three  hundred 
miles  away.  This  fact  is  proved  by  the  per¬ 
sonal  testimony  of  the  philosopher  Kant,  and 
authenticated  by  the  public  civil  authorities. 
Similar  cases  have  occurred  in  all  times,  and  are 
well  attested.  The  wonder  is,  that  any  intelli¬ 
gent  person  can  doubt  the  reality  of  this  phe¬ 
nomenon,  dismiss  it  with  a  sneer,  and  class  it 
with  the  tricks  of  the  conjurer  and  showman. 
Any  person  who  desires  to  know  the  truth  re¬ 
garding  this  matter  need  not  remain  long  in 
doubt. 

In  view  of  these  incontrovertible  facts  man 
must  be  superior  to  his  physical  organization, 
and  does  sometimes  show  his  independence  of 
it  and  of  his  material  environments. 

Another  fact  bearing  upon  this  subject,  and  well 
known  to  medical  practitioners,  is  the  manner 
in  which  the  human  intelligence  often  asserts  its 
superiority  and  independence  when  the  hour  of 


What  is  Man  f 


19 


bodily  dissolution  approaches  and  is  actually 
going  on.  The  editor  of  the- Boston  Journal  of 
Chemistry ,  before  mentioned,  refers  to  a  most 
important  paper  published  a  few  years  ago  by  a 
Philadelphia  physician,  Dr.  La  Roche,  on  the 
“  Resumption  of  the  Mental  Faculties  at  the 
Approach  of  Death,”  which  was  extensively 
copied  by  the  medical  journals  of  America  and 
Europe  with  favorable  comment :  “  Its  object 
was  to  show  that  sick  persons,  when  the  mental 
faculties  are  clouded  by  delirium,  will  in  the 
hour  of  death  become  perfectly  lucid  and  speak 
with  wisdom,  with  power  of  memory  and  with 
pleasure,  their  whole  past  lives  coming  in  dis¬ 
tinct  review.”  Dr.  Nichols  goes  on  to  say :  “  It 
is  common  for  patients  prostrated  by  disease, 
and  who  rave  like  maniacs  or  talk  irrationally, 
or  who  sink  into  a  deep  lethargic  sleep  from 
which  they  cannot  be  aroused,  to  suddenly  ac¬ 
quire  consciousness  again,  their  natural  condi¬ 
tion  'of  mind,  become  clear  in  their  perceptions, 
and  then  in  a  few  moments  fall  back  and  die. 
This  fact  has  been  noticed  by  physicians  as  far 
back  as  the  time  of  Hippocrates,  and  indeed  is 
spoken  of  by  Hippocrates  himself.  This  ancient 
physician  closes  a  description  of  some  similar 
cases  in  the  following  language :  ‘  As  to  the 
state  of  the  soul,  every  sense  becomes  clear  and 
pure,  the  intellect  acute,  and  the  gnostic  powers 


20  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


so  prophetic  that  the  patients  can  prognosticate 
to  themselves,  in  the  first  place,  their  own  de¬ 
parture  from  life,  then  what  will  take  place  to 
those  present.’  ”  Dr.  La  Roche  in  the  paper 
alluded  to  shows  that  “  the  mind  often  becomes 
clear  in  death  when  the  brain  is  greatly  diseased, 
when  inflammation  of  the  coverings  is  present, 
and  even  when  there  is  change  in  the  brain- 
substance  itself.”  This  certainly  indicates  that 
the  real  man  is  superior  to  and  independent  of 
his  physical  condition,  and  not  entirely  depend¬ 
ent  upon  his  material  organism.  Physicians  of 
high  standing  say  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  in  the  dissolution  of  the  body  the  mind 
always  becomes  lucid,  though  attendants  may 
not  always  observe  it,  and  that  even  in  cases  of 
insanity  the  patient  generally  evinces  mental 
soundness  before  death  occurs.  It  is  certain 
that  mental  exaltation  amounting  to  the  pro¬ 
phetic  and  clairvoyant  state  often  occurs  in  the 
article  of  death. 

All  persons  have  become  more  or  less  famil¬ 
iar  with  those  miraculous  mental  exercises  which 
have  been  experienced  by  persons  in  the  agony 
of  drowning,  but  who  were  rescued  and  restored 
before  life  was  extinct.  The  greatest  mental 
power  has  been  displayed  under  these  circum¬ 
stances,  and  in  the  course  of  a  few  seconds  the 
history  of  a  whole  life  has  been  portrayed  with 


What  is  Man  ? 


21 


astounding  distinctness  and  detail,  even  includ¬ 
ing  things  which  had  been  entirely  forgotten. 
With  these  brief  hints  this  subject  must,  if  fol¬ 
lowed  up,  become  one  of  great  interest  to  the 
student  of  human  nature. 

Even  at  the  risk  of  being  suspected  of  undue 
credulity,  one  thing  more  must  be  introduced 
here  to  show  the  superiority  and  independence 
of  the  real  man  of  his  physical  body.  It  is  the 
claim  that  in  the  moment  of  death  the  spectator 
has  with  his  natural  eyes  often  seen  something, 
and  by  spiritual  intuition  realized  that  the  real 
personality  withdrew  from  the  corporeal  form 
and  entered  upon  a  separate  existence.  Dr. 
Edward  H.  Clark,  late  of  Boston,  was  the  author 
of  several  able  works  on  abstruse  medical  sub¬ 
jects,  one  of  which  is  entitled  Visions :  A  Study 
of  False  Sight.  For  this  book  Dr.  Oliver  Wendell 
Holmes  wrote  an  introduction  and  memorial 
sketch.  Dr.  Clark  reports  a  striking  case  of  a 
lady  patient  of  his  as  follows :  “  After  saying  a 
few  words  she  turned  her  head  upon  her  pillow 
as  if  to  sleep;  then,  unexpectedly  turning  it 
back,  a  glow  brilliant  and  beautiful  exceedingly 
came  into  her  features,  and  her  eyes,  opening, 
sparkled  with  singular  vivacity.  At  the  same 
moment,  with  a  tone  of  emphatic  surprise  and 
delight,  she  pronounced  the  name  of  the  earthly 
being  nearest  and  dearest  to  her,  and  then, 


22  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

dropping  her  head  upon  her  pillow  as  unex¬ 
pectedly  as  she  had  looked  up,  her  spirit  de¬ 
parted  to  God  who  gave  it.  The  conviction 
forced  upon  my  mind  that  something  departed 
from  her  body  at  that  instant  of  time ,  rupturing 
the  bonds  of  flesh ,  was  stronger  than  language 
can  express .”  Dr.  Holmes  says  that  Dr.  Clark 
mentioned  to  him  a  similar  case  not  reported  in 
his  book.  At  the  very  instant  of  dissolution  it 
seemed  to  him  (in  this  second  case),  as  he  sat 
at  the  dying  lady’s  side,  that  “  there  arose  some¬ 
thing — an  undefined  yet  perfectly-apprehended 
somewhat — to  which  he  could  give  no  name) 
but  which  was  like  a  departing  presence .”  In 
this  connection  Dr.  Holmes  mentions  the  fact 
that  “  he  had  heard  the  same  experience,  almost 
in  the  very  same  words,  from  the  lips  of  one 
whose  evidence  is  eminently  to  be  relied  upon.  ’ 
“  With  the  last  breath  of  the  parent  she  was 
watching  she  had  the  consciousness  that  some¬ 
thing  arose,  as  if  the  spirit  had  made  itself  cog¬ 
nizable  at  the  moment  of  quitting  the  mortal 
tenement.”  Many  similar  experiences  could  be 
furnished  from  the  note-books  of  physicians  of 
the  highest  professional  standing. 

Having  introduced  the  subject  of  clairvoy¬ 
ance,  it  is  not  improper  to  introduce  testimony 
from  that  source.  Myra  Carpenter,  whose  moral 
character  is  above  suspicion,  was  a  clairvoyant, 


What  is  Man  ? 


23 


and  had  acquired  the  power  of  inducing  this 
lucid  condition  at  pleasure.  She  had  been  re¬ 
quested  by  her  mother  to  watch  clairvoyantly 
at  the  time  of  her  death,  and  to  publish  what 
she  saw.  Her  report  on  her  mother’s  death  is 
in  part  as  follows : 

“First  the  power  of  sight  departed,  and  then  a  veil 
seemed  to  drop  over  the  eyes ;  then  the  hearing  ceased, 
and  next  the  sense  of  feeling.  The  spirit  began  to  leave 
the  limbs,  as  they  died  first,  and  the  light  that  filled  each 
part  in  every  fibre  drew  up  toward  the  chest.  As  fast  as 
this  took  place  the  veil  seemed  to  drop  over  the  part  from 
whence  spiritual  life  was  removed.  A  ball  of  light  was 
now  gathering  just  above  the  head,  and  this  continued  to 
increase  as  long  as  the  spirit  was  connected  with  the 
bodv.  The  light  left  the  brain  last,  and  then  the  silver 
cord  was  loosened.  The  luminous  appearance  soon  be¬ 
gan  to  assume  the  human  form,  and  I  could  see  my 
mother  again,  but  oh,  how  changed!  She  was  light  and 
glorious,  arrayed  in  robes  of  dazzling  whiteness,  free 
from  disease,  pain  and  death.  She  seemed  to  be  wel¬ 
comed  by  the  attending  spirits  with  the  joy  of  a  mother 
over  the  birth  of  a  child.  She  paid  no  attention  to  me  or 
any  earthly  object,  but  joined  her  companions,  and  they 
seemed  to  go  through  the  air.  ...  I  saw  them  ascend 
till  they  seemed  to  pass  through  an  open  space,  when 
a  mist  came  over  my  sight  and  I  saw  them  no  more. 
This  vision,  far  more  beautiful  than  language  can  ex¬ 
press,  remains  stamped  upon  my  memory.  It  is  an  un¬ 
failing  comfort  to  me  in  my  bereavement.’’ 

In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  introduce 
the  description  of  a  death-bed  scene  as  clair¬ 
voyantly  given  by  that  wonderful  man,  Andrew 


24  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


Jackson  Davis.  Those  who  would  fully  appre¬ 
ciate  him  should  read  his  Autobiography  and 
some  others  of  his  numerous  books.  His  clair¬ 
voyance  has  been  established  beyond  a  doubt. 
What  follows  is  his  description  of  a  female  pa¬ 
tient  about  sixty  years  of  age  who  died  of  a 
cancerous  disease  of  the  stomach.  He  says : 

“  Now  the  process  of  dying  or  of  the  spirit’s  departure 
from  the  body  was  fully  commenced.  The  brain  began 
to  attract  the  elements  of  electricity,  of  magnetism,  of 
motion,  of  life  and  of  sensation  into  its  various  and  nu¬ 
merous  departments.  The  head  became  intensely  bril¬ 
liant,  and  I  particularly  remarked  that  just  in  the  same 
proportion  as  the  extremities  of  the  organism  grew  dark 
and  cold  the  brain  appeared  light  and  glowing.  Now  I 
saw  in  the  mellow  spiritual  atmosphere  which  emanated 
from  and  enriched  her  head  the  indistinct  outlines  of  the 
formation  of  another  head.  .  .  .  The  new  head  unfolded 
more  and  more  distinctly,  and  so  indescribably  compact 
and  intensely  brilliant  did  it  become  that  I  could  neither 
see  through  it  nor  gaze  upon  it  as  steadily  as  I  desired. 
.  .  .  With  inexpressible  wonder  and  with  a  heavenly  and 
unutterable  reverence  I  gazed  upon  the  holy  and  harmo¬ 
nious  processes  that  were  going  on  before  me.  In  the 
identical  manner  in  which  the  spiritual  head  was  elimin¬ 
ated  and  unchangeably  organized  I  saw  unfolding  in 
their  natural  progressive  order  the  harmonious  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  neck,  the  shoulders,  the  heart  and  the  entire 
spiritual  organization.  .  .  .  But  immediately  previous  to 
the  final  dissolution  of  the  relationship  which  had  for  so 
many  years  subsisted  between  the  spiritual  and  material 
bodies,  I  saw  playing  energetically  between  the  feet  of  the 
elevated  spiritual  body  and  the  head  of  the  prostrate 
physical  body  a  bright  stream  or  current  of  vital  electricity. 


What  is  Man  ? 


25 


This  taught  me  that  what  is  customarily  termed  death 
is  but  the  birth  of  the  spirit  from  a  lower  into  a  higher 
state. 

“  I  learned  that  the  correspondence  between  the  birth 
of  a  child  into  this  world  and  the  birth  of  the  spirit  from 
a  material  body  into  a  higher  world  is  absolute  and  com¬ 
plete,  even  to  the  umbilical  cord,  which  was  represented 
by  the  thread  of  vital  electricity  which  for  a  few  minutes 
subsisted  between  and  connected  the  two  organisms  to¬ 
gether.  ...  As  soon  as  the  spirit  whose  departing  hour 
I  thus  watched  was  wholly  disengaged  from  the  tenacious 
physical  body,  ...  I  saw  her  begin  to  breathe  the  most 
interior  or  spiritual  portion  of  the  surrounding  terrestrial 
atmosphere.  At  first  it  seemed  difficult,  .  .  .  but  in  a 
few  seconds  she  inhaled  and  exhaled  the  spiritual  ele¬ 
ments  of  nature  with  ease  and  delight.  And  now  I  saw 
she  was  in  possession  of  exterior  and  physical  proportions 
which  were  identical  in  every  particular — improved  and 
beautiful — with  those  proportions  which  characterized  her 
earthly  organization.  .  .  . 

“  The  period  required  to  accomplish  the  entire  change 
which  I  saw  was  not  far  from  two  hours  and  a  half,  but 
this  furnishes  no  rule  for  every  spirit  to  elevate  and  reor¬ 
ganize  itself  above  the  head  of  the  outer  form.  .  .  .  Im¬ 
mediately  upon  emergment  from  the  house  she  was 
joined  by  two  friendly  spirits  from  the  spiritual  countiy, 
and  after  tenderly  recognizing  and  communing  with  each 
other,  the  three  in  the  most  graceful  manner  began  as¬ 
cending  obliquely  through  the  ethereal  envelopment  of 
our  globe.  They  walked  so  naturally  and  fraternally 
together  that  I  could  scarcely  realize  the  fact  that  they 
trod  the  air.  .  .  .  When  I  returned  to  my  ordinary  con¬ 
dition,  oh,  what  a  contrast !  Instead  of  beholding  that 
beautiful  and  youthful  and  unfolded  spirit,  I  now  saw,  in 
common  with  others  about  me,  the  lifeless,  cold  and 
shrouded  organism  of  the  caterpillar  which  the  joyous 
b,  tterfly  had  so  recently  abandoned.” 


2 6  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


In  answer  to  the  question,  What  is  Man?  we 
are  now  ready  to  answer :  Man  is  a  complex 
being — has  a  dual  or  twofold,  if  not  triple,  na¬ 
ture.  This  is  no  new  doctrine.  It  is  as  old  as 
the  history  of  our  race.  Homer  and  Hesiod, 
Plutarch  and  Bacon,  and  all  the  great  poets  and 
philosophers,  held  it.  The  literature  of  all 
countries  and  peoples  is  full  of  it.  What  nearly 
all  great  minds  have  credited  is  at  least  worthy 
of  respectful  consideration.  The  doctrine  may 
be  thus  summarized :  Man  has  an  external, 
visible  body.  We  know  its  constituent  ele¬ 
ments  to  be  “of  the  earth  earthy.”  Leibnitz  and 
other  chemists  analyze  it  and  reduce  it  to  im¬ 
palpable  gases  which  may  be  inhaled  into  our 
lungs  and  absorbed  and  appropriated  by  the 
plants.  But  within  this  “outer”  man  there  is 
an  “  inner  ”  man,  which  is  called  the  “  spiritual 
body.”  What  are  its  constituent  elements  is  not 
known.  The  line  of  demarcation  between  the 
material  and  the  spiritual  is  not  fixed,  and  it  is 
not  the  object  of  this  paper  to  go  into  metaphys¬ 
ical  distinctions,  and  thus  run  the  risk  of  divert¬ 
ing  attention  from  the  main  subject  under  con¬ 
sideration.  If  the  inner  body  is  material,  it  is  at 
the  same  time  so  ethereal  as  not  to  be  subject  to 
the  test  and  laws  of  matter  in  its  grosser  forms. 
Swedenborg  has  written  extensively  upon  this 
subject.  Wesley  thought  it  might  be  composed 


What  is  Man  ? 


27 


of  ethereal  or  the  finest  of  electric  matter.  The 
late  Professor  Bush  of  the  New  York  University 
said  :  “  It  performs  for  the  spirit  the  office  of  a 
body,  and  is  therefore  so  termed.”  Professor 
Benjamin  Pierce,  the  eminent  mathematician  of 
Harvard  University,  says:  “Body  and  matter 
are  essential  to  man’s  true  existence.  .  .  .  The 
soul  which  leaves  this  earthly  body  still  requires 
incorporation.  The  apostle  Paul  has  told  us  in 
one  of  his  sublime  Epistles  that  there  are  celes¬ 
tial  bodies  as  well  as  bodies  terrestrial.”  These 
were  the  views  of  the  New-Testament  writers 
and  of  the  Christian  Fathers.  Paul  further  said: 
“  There  is  (not,  will  be)  a  natural  body,  and  there 
is  a  spiritual  body;  ”  “  It  is  sown  a  natural  body, 
it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body.”  If  Moses  and 
Elias  appeared  upon  the  Mount  of  Transfigura¬ 
tion,  it  was  in  their  spiritual  bodies.  If  Jesus 
appeared  after  his  resurrection,  it  was  in  his 
spiritual  body.  The  passage  lound  in  Luke 
(24  :  39),  “  Handle  me  and  see,  for  a  spirit  hath 
not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye  see  me  have,”  has  evi¬ 
dently  been  tampered  with  by  compilers  and 
translators  who  believed  in  the  literal  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  the  physical,  animal  body.  Ignatius, 
bishop  of  Antioch  about  A.  D.  70,  and  who 
wrote  before  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  Luke  was 
written,  thus  rendered  it :  “  Handle  me  and  see, 
for  I  am  not  a  spirit  without  body  ( dainiomon 


28  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


asomaton ).”  This  is  doubtless  the  true  reading, 
and  explains  the  statements  that  Jesus  after  his 
resurrection  entered  a  closed  room  without 
opening  the  door,  was  transported  to  a  distant 
place  without  the  ordinary  means  of  locomotion, 
was  not  always  readily  recognized  by  his  friends, 
and  at  pleasure  “  vanished  out  of  their  sight.” 
It  is  said  “  flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God,”  but  a  body  is  not  necessarily 
flesh  and  blood.  Even  matter  in  its  different 
forms  is  not  subject  to  the  same  conditions  and 
laws.  Light  and  electricity  are  very  unlike 
glass  and  iron,  and  to  a  certain  extent  independ¬ 
ent  of  them,  and  pass  through  them  without 
any  apparent  displacement  of  their  constituent 
particles.  Nor  is  the  doctrine  of  a  spiritual 
body  within  the  natural  body  scouted  by  true 
science  and  the  analogies  of  nature.  Duality 
in  man’s  physical  nature  is  suggestive  of  dupli¬ 
cation  in  his  spiritual  nature  in  association  with 
his  animal  form.  Those  who  have  lost  limbs 
agree  in  affirming  that  at  times  the  lost  mem¬ 
ber  is  as  really  subject  to  sensation  as  before 
amputation.  The  outer  member  has  perished, 
but  the  inner  member  still  remains,  though  in¬ 
visible  to  natural  eyes.  Many  mysteries  of 
physiology  can  only  be  explained  upon  the  hy¬ 
pothesis  of  the  spiritual,  duplicate  body.  Let 
scientists  postulate  this,  and  they  will  have  no 


What  is  Man  ? 


29 


difficulty  in  explaining  the  work  of  bioplasts  in 
weaving  and  working  the  delicate  tissues  of  the 
physical  organism.  Even  Paul  says :  “  Though 
the  outer  man  perish,  the  inner  man  is  renewed 
day  by  day.”  The  outer  caterpillar  contains  the 
inward  butterfly.  Nature  is  full  of  analogies  of 
the  dual  nature  of  man,  and  when  scientists  be¬ 
come  thoroughly  scientific  they  will  not  limit 
their  observations  to  the  crust  of  things,  but 
will  acknowledge  that  there  must  be  a  kernel, 
and  that  there  are  things  in  heaven  and  earth 
not  dreamed  of  in  their  philosophy — that  there 
are  things  that  cannot  be  tasted,  seen  and 
handled  with  physical  organs.  “  The  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned,”  is 
a  philosophical  principle  of  which  materialists 
seem  ignorant. 

Light,  heat,  magnetism  and  gravitation  are  as 
real  as  the  more  ponderous  substances  of  nature, 
and  we  have  as  good  evidence  of  the  entitative 
existence  of  the  imponderable  and  the  invisible 
as  of  the  grossest  material  formations.  Indeed, 
we  know  that  the  most  powerful  forces  and 
agencies  of  nature  are  the  unseen  and  incom- 
prehensible,  just  as  we  have  reason  to  believe 
that  the  more  important  part  of  man  is  his  spir¬ 
itual  body,  which  is  the  perisprit  or  envelope  of 
his  divine  spirit ,  just  as  the  decaying  mortal 


30  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


body  is  the  external  crust  or  shell  in  which  the 
real  man  is  for  the  present  enshrined.  If  these 
views  are  well  founded,  what  is  called  death 
should  be  regarded  as  birth.  Death  is  transi¬ 
tion.  It  is  the  beginning  of  a  higher  life.  The 
second  birth  is  no  more  wonderful  than  the  first. 
One  is  ^carnation,  and  the  other  ^carnation,  if 
we  may  be  permitted  to  coin  a  word.  Man  is  a 
spirit,  and  is  surrounded  by  spirits  enveloped  in 
physical  forms.  We  are  now  in  a  spirit-world. 
“  Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom 
of  God,”  but  there  may  be  bodies  which  are  not 
flesh  and  blood.  We  may  be  “  unclothed  ”  at 
death  of  our  gross  covering,  and  yet  be  “clothed 
upon  ”  with  finer  but  not  less  real  material.  A 
Persian  poet  has  well  said : 

“What  is  the  soul  ?  The  seminal  principle  from  the  loins 
of  destiny. 

This  world  is  the  womb  ;  the  body  its  enveloping  mem¬ 
brane  ; 

The  bitterness  of  dissolution,  Dame  Fortune’s  pangs  of 
childbirth. 

What  is  death  ?  To  be  born  again  an  angel  of  eternity.” 

But  more  of  this  in  considering  the  questions 
of  a  future  life  and  immortality. 


II 


THE  COMMON  DOGMA  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN. 
O  man  of  reflection  can  be  indifferent  to 


IN  the  question  regarding  the  origin  of  the 
race  to  which  he  belongs.  Few  persons  who 
have  allowed  themselves  to  think  seriously  upon 
this  problem  have  been  satisfied  with  the  com¬ 
mon  answer  given  in  the  nursery,  Sunday-school 
and  church.  And  yet  the  prevailing  belief  of 
Christendom  to-day  is,  that  about  six  thousand 
years  ago  the  Supreme  Being,  somewhere  in 
Asia,  took  common  clay  and  moulded  it  into 
the  form  of  a  man,  somewhat  as  a  sculptor 
forms  the  model  from  which  the  marble  statue 
is  to  be  copied ;  and  when  shaped  to  his  liking 
he  breathed  into  the  cold,  inanimate  figure  the 
breath  of  life,  and  it  became  a  living  soul.  This 
miraculous  work  is  believed  to  have  been  begun 
and  completed  on  a  particular  day,  so  that  in 
the  morning  the  earth  contained  not  a  man,  but 
in  the  afternoon  or  evening  a  full-grown  man 
stood  up  in  his  majesty  and  assumed  supremacy 
over  all  living  things.  This  God-like  man  find- 


Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


32 

ing  himself  lonely,  the  Creator  put  him  to  sleep 
and  opened  his  side,  and  took  therefrom  a  rib, 
out  of  which  he  formed  a  female  man — a  woman 
— who  was  to  be  a  companion,  a  wife,  to  the  male 
man,  and  from  this  human  couple  have  come 
by  ordinary  generation  all  the  people  dwelling 
upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  There  is  no  subject 
upon  which  imagination  has  so  exhausted  itself, 
or  fancy  been  more  free  and  poetry  more  florid, 
than  in  describing  the  intellectual,  moral  and 
physical  perfection  of  these  miraculously-cre¬ 
ated  beings.  Unfortunately  for  their  progeny, 
this  perfection  did  not  long  continue,  for  before 
they  were  blessed  with  offspring  they  lost  their 
Creator’s  favor  and  became  fearfully  demoralized, 
and  instead  of  begetting  children  endowed  with 
their  own  angelic  qualities  they  became  the  un¬ 
happy  parents  of  a  race  of  moral  monsters,  a 
degraded  and  dishonored  family,  of  which  we 
are  all  unfortunate  members. 

This  story  is  to-day  received  as  the  true  one 
by  the  common  people,  and  is  taught  every 
Sunday  by  threescore  thousand  pulpiteers  in 
these  United  States,  and  in  thousands  and  tens 
of  thousands  of  Sunday-schools  to  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  credulous  and  confiding  chil¬ 
dren. 

The  common  ecclesiastical  theory  of  the 
origin  of  the  human  race,  and  the  whole  story 

o  7 


The  Common  Dogma. 


33 


of  Adam  and  Eve,  the  talking  serpent,  the  sin¬ 
ning  woman  and  her  unfortunate  progeny,  are 
based  upon  the  assumption  that  these  matters 
have  been  certainly  revealed  by  the  Creator  and 
written  down  in  the  oldest  of  all  books  by  a 
man  specially  chosen  and  plenarily  inspired  by 
Omniscience,  so  that  there  can  be  no  error  or 
mistake  in  the  record ;  and  to  question  this  nar¬ 
rative  is  most  impious  and  blasphemous,  and 
generally  subjects  the  doubter  to  the  scandal  of 
infidelity. 

If  this  were  a  mere  theory,  having  no  neces¬ 
sary  connection  with  great  questions  of  religion 
and  practical  morality,  it  might  not  be  worth 
our  while  to  examine  it.  But,  as  will  hereafter 
appear  in  this  discussion,  this  question  is  insep¬ 
arably  connected  with  every  other  question  dear 
to  man,  and  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  all 
religion;  and  the  great  question  of  universal 
humanity,  Whither?  cannot  be  intelligently  an¬ 
swered  until  we  settle  the  question  Whence? 

A  few  obvious  suggestions  that  bear  upon  this 
vital  question  may  with  propriety  here  be  intro¬ 
duced. 

It  is  a  sheer  assumption  that  the  Creator  has 
made  a  written  revelation  regarding  the  origin 
of  the  human  race.  There  is  not  in  the  book 
of  Genesis,  the  first  book  in  the  Jewish  Bible, 
single  sentence  to  show  that  God  wrote  it, 

o 

3 


one 


34 


Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


or  that  he  dictated  it  or  inspired  it,  or  that  its 
writer  claimed  or  professed  to  write  it  under  di¬ 
vine  or  any  other  special  inspiration. 

It  is  not  true,  as  is  often  asserted,  that  the 
Hebrew  book  of  Genesis  is  the  oldest  book  in 
the  world,  and  that  all  other  books,  containing 
the  same  matter  on  any  given  subject,  derived 
their  knowledge  from  it.  The  most  credulous 
theologist  does  not  claim  for  Genesis  that  it  was 
written  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years  before 
Christ,  and  there  is  good  reason  for  believing 
that  it  was  compiled  from  various  sources  in  the 
form  in  which  we  now  have  it,  probably  by  the 
Jewish  priest  Hilkiah,  about  the  year  626  before 
the  Christian  era.  The  arguments  in  favor  of 
this  position  are  very  conclusive,  and  are  based 
mainly  upon  historical,  biographical  and  geo¬ 
graphical  allusions  found  in  the  Old-Testa¬ 
ment  Scriptures  themselves,  and  have  been 
well  summarized  in  New  Researches  of  Ancient 
History.  The  evidence  in  support  of  this  is 
as  conclusive  as  that  Chicago  did  not  exist 
at  the  period  of  the  American  Revolution. 
The  inquirer  would  do  well  to  examine  this 
subject  of  the  comparative  antiquity  of  the  so- 
called  sacred  scriptures  of  pagans  and  Jews,  and 
he  may  be  greatly  assisted  by  the  little  book 
The  Bible — Whence  and  What?  recently  pub¬ 
lished  by  Lippincott.  According  to  Berosus,  a 


35 


The  Common  Dogma. 

priest  of  the  temple  of  Belus  276  years  b.  c., 
often  quoted  by  Josephus,  fragments  of  Persian 
history  can  be  traced  back  fifteen  thousand  years. 
The  admissions  of  Renouf,  Max  Muller  and  other 
learned  orthodox  scholars  as  to  the  greater  an¬ 
tiquity  of  scriptures  called  pagan  should  make 
the  modern  exhorter  blush  when  he  asserts  that 
the  Jewish  Genesis  is  the  oldest  writing  in  the 
world. 

The  story  of  the  origin  of  our  race,  as  re¬ 
corded  in  Genesis,  is  not  first  found  in  writings 
improperly,  as  many  think,  ascribed  to  Moses. 
So  far  from  this  being  true,  we  find  the  same 
story,  substantially,  in  documents  written  hun¬ 
dreds  if  not  thousands  of  years  before  Moses 
was  born,  and  among  people  who  had  never 
heard  of  Jehovah  and  Elohim,  the  Gods  of  Gene¬ 
sis.  It  would  be  superfluous,  and  not  consistent 
with  the  design  of  these  papers,  to  transcribe  at 
length  these  ancient  legends,  found  among  Hin¬ 
doos,  Persians,  Etruscans,  Phoenicians,  Babylo¬ 
nians,  Chaldaeans,  Egyptians,  Thibetans,  and  in 
fact  among  nearly  all  the  pagan  nations  of  an¬ 
tiquity,  who  flourished  long  centuries  before 
the  Jews  had  an  existence.  These  facts  are  ad¬ 
mitted  by  the  most  learned  writers  of  the  or¬ 
thodox  school.  The  truth  is,  that  any  man  who 
dares  now  deny  that  the  first  and  second  chap¬ 
ters  of  Genesis  are  compilations  from  older  tra- 


36  Man— Whence  and  Whither? 


ditions  and  legends  must  subject  himself  to  the 
charge  of  either  ignorance  or  dishonesty.  It  is 
not  claimed  that  there  is  a  literal  agreement,  in 
every  particular,  between  these  pagan  legends 
and  the  Hebrew  story,  but  that  they  agree  in  so 
many  particulars  as  to  show  a  common  origin. 
There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  He¬ 
brews  borrowed  the  story  substantially  from 
the  Babylonians,  among  whom  they  had  been 
captives,  and  they  probably  derived  it  from  the 
Akkadians,  a  highly-cultivated  people  who  dwelt 
in  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates  before  Babylon  was 
founded.  According  to  this  account,  the  Supreme 
Being  (Ormuzd)  divided  the  work  of  creation  into 
six  parts :  he  created  Adama  and  Evah  on  the 
sixth  day,  and  made  all  other  creatures  subser¬ 
vient.  This  is  not  a  recent  discovery,  as  many 
writers  of  distinction  have  been  obliged  to  admit 
the  strong  resemblance  between  the  Zend  narra¬ 
tive  and  the  Mosaic,  so  called.  The  Etruscan 
story  is  substantially  the  same,  with  such  slight 
variations  as  to  suggest  that  one  of  the  accounts 
in  Genesis  was  partially  taken  from  it.  Dr. 
Delitzsch,  while  vigorously  maintaining  the  his¬ 
torical  truthfulness  of  the  Hebrew  narrative,  yet 
inquires  :  “  Whence  comes  the  surprising  agree¬ 
ment  of  the  Etruscan  and  Persian  legends  with 
this  section  ?  How  comes  it  that  the  Babylo¬ 
nian  cosmogony  in  Berosus  and  the  Phoenician 


37 


The  Common  Dogma. 

in  Sanchoniathon,  in  spite  of  their  fantastical 
oddity,  come  in  contact  with  it  in  remarkable 
details  ?”  After  enumerating  many  things  in 
which  the  identity  is  perfect,  he  says :  “  For 
such  an  account  outside  of  Israel  we  must, 
however,  conclude  that  the  author  of  Genesis 
has  no  vision  before  him,  but  a  tradition.” 

The  Persian  account  also  agrees  with  the  He¬ 
brew  in  almost  every  particular  regarding  the 
temptation  of  the  first  man  and  woman  by  a 
serpent,  the  wonderful  tree  whose  fruit  imparted 
immortality,  their  fall,  the  covering  of  their 
nakedness,  etc.  etc. 

But  recent  discoveries  made  by  Mr.  George 
Smith  of  the  British  Museum  for  ever  settle  the 
charge  of  plagiarism  against  the  Hebrew  author. 
The  cuneiform  inscriptions  prove  conclusively 
that  the  Babylonians  had  this  legend  of  the  cre¬ 
ation  and  fall  of  man  more  than  fifteen  hundred 
years  before  the  Hebrews  ever  heard  of  it.  A 
representation  of  the  principal  objects,  copied 
from  an  Assyrian  cylinder,  may  be  seen  in 
Smith’s  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis.  He  says: 
“  We  know  well  that  in  these  early  sculptures 
none  of  these  figures  were  chance'  devices,  but 
all  represented  events,  or  supposed  events,  and 
figures  in  their  legends ;  thus  it  is  evident  that 
a  form  of  the  story  of  the  Fall  similar  to  that  of 
Genesis  was  known  in  early  times  in  Babylonia.” 


38  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

These  things  are  not  wonderful  when  we  find 
substantially  the  same  fables  among  the  ancient 
Egyptians  and  Hindoos  and  other  nations  of 
antiquity.  It  would  be  easy  to  fill  volumes  with 
quotations  proving  and  illustrating  these  facts. 
Bearing  in  mind  what  is  thus  fully  proved,  there 
is  no  difficulty  in  understanding  why  the  entire 
Old  Testament  is  silent  regarding  the  origin 
and  fall  of  man  (except  the  short,  contradictory 
account  in  Genesis),  and  that  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  Samuel  and  the  prophets,  and  prob¬ 
ably  Moses  himself,  never  heard  of  the  marvel¬ 
lous  story.  The  Jews  do  not  seem  to  have 
heard  of  it  in  Egypt,  but  first  obtained  it  from 
the  Babylonians ;  and  thus  is  furnished  another 
evidence  of  the  comparatively  modern  origin  of 
the  Pentateuch,  improperly  credited  to  Moses. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood  that  the  popu¬ 
lar  ecclesiastical  dogma  regarding  the  origin  of 
man  has  been  unmistakably  traced  to  an  unau- 
thentic  legend  existing  among  many  nations  older 
than  the  Hebrews,  and  who  knew  it  to  be  a  fable. 
From  these  well-established  facts  the  conclusion 
is  inevitable  that  if  the  popular  story  of  the  ori¬ 
gin  of  man  is  a  matter  of  divine  revelation  and 
historically  true,  it  was  not  first  revealed  to  the 
Jews,  but  to  pagan  peoples,  from  whom  the 
story  was  borrowed  by  the  compiler  of  Gene¬ 
sis.  Where  and  in  what  manner  these  Oriental 


The  Common  Dogma.  39 

legends  originated  it  is  not  necessary  here  to 
Inquire. 

The  so-called  Mosaic  narrative  in  Genesis 
contains  in  itself  evidence  of  having  been  com¬ 
piled  from  traditions  and  legendary  tales,  and 
that  statements  so  contradictory  could  not  have 
been  dictated  by  an  infinite  Creator.  That  there 
are  two  fiatly-contradictory  accounts  of  the  cre¬ 
ation  of  man  and  woman  in  Genesis  every  atten¬ 
tive  reader  knows.  And  this  fact  is  by  candid 
orthodox  writers  admitted,  and  by  none  more 
frankly  than  by  the  late  Dean  Stanley  of  the 
English  Establishment.  The  first  account  of  cre¬ 
ation  ends  at  the  third  verse  of  Genesis  2,  and  the 
second  account  begins  at  the  fourth  verse,  and 
closes  with  the  end  of  that  chapter.  In  the  first 
account  the  man  and  woman  are  created  together 
on  the  sixth  and  last  day  of  creation,  as  the  com¬ 
plement  of  each  other  and  to  be  blessed  together 
(Gen.  1  :  28).  In  the  second  account  the  beasts 
and  birds  are  created  after  the  creation  of  the  man 
and  before  the  creation  of  the  woman,  and  it  was 
not  until  after  Adam  had  examined  and  named 
all  the  beasts  of  the  fields,  and  had  failed  to  find 
among  the  apes,  chimpanzees  and  orangs  a  suit¬ 
able  companion  for  himself,  that  Eve  was  made 
from  one  of  Adam  s  ribs,  taken  from  his  piim- 
eval  anatomy  while  under  the  influence  of  a 
divine  anaesthetic  (Gen.  2  :  7,  8,  15,  22).  In  the 


40  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


first  account  man  was  made  on  the  last  day, 
and  woman  was  made  at  the  same  time,  with 
him  and  for  him.  In  the  second  account  man 
was  made  after  the  plants  and  herbs,  but  before 
fruit  trees,  beasts  and  birds,  and  woman — who 
was  made  after  all  things — was  an  afterthought, 
a  sort  of  necessary  evil,  for  the  comfort  and 
solace  of  man.  These  contradictions  run  through 
the  whole  of  the  first  and  second  chapters  of 
Genesis,  relating  to  the  entire  work  of  creation, 
and  plainly  show  that  these  narratives  were 
written  or  compiled  by  two  different  persons 
from  indefinite  traditions  and  from  different 
written  documents.  Had  the  Creator  under¬ 
taken  to  write  or  dictate  an  account  of  his  own 
work,  he  certainly  would  not  have  contradicted 
himself  in  six  particular  items  in  the  limit  of  a 
few  lines. 

The  credibility  of  the  document  in  which  is 
found  the  commonly- received  account  of  the  ori¬ 
gin  of  the  human  race  is  further  impaired,  and  in¬ 
deed  destroyed,  by  the  consideration  that  it  con¬ 
tains  statements  that  are  absurd  and  at  variance 
with  the  demonstrations  of  science.  It  teaches 
not  only  that  the  world  was  made  in  six  days 
of  twenty-four  hours  each,  but  that  the  universe 
outside  of  this ,  earth  was  made  in  a  single 
day. 

The  Hebrew  word  translated  “  days,”  Angli- 


4i 


The  Common  Dogma. 

cised,  is  yorns.  It  is  admitted  that  this  word,  in 
its  plural  form,  sometimes  means  more  than  a 
day  of  twenty-four  hours,  but  it  generally  means 
a  single  day ;  and  all  Hebraists  know  that  when 
a  longer  or  an  indefinite  period  is  intended  the 
word  olam  is  the  proper  word.  If  this  word 
had  been  used  instead  of  the  word  yom,  there 
might  have  been  some  ground  for  the  pretence 
that  the  Mosaic  account  is  consistent  with  the 
demonstrations  of  modern  science  as  to  the 
almost  eternally  long  period  of  the  creative 
epoch.  It  would  be  easy  to  furnish  almost  in¬ 
numerable  admissions  of  orthodox  scholars  to 
show  that  the  six  days  of  the  creative  week  were 
intended  by  the  writer  to  describe  ordinary,  nat¬ 
ural  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each — days,  in 
fact,  and  not  indefinite  periods  of  long  duration. 
Any  other  interpretation  Professor  Hitchcock 
has  pronounced  “  forced  and  unnatural,  and 
therefore  not  to  be  adopted  without  a  very  urgent 
i necessity  ”  The  venerable  Moses  Stuart,  long 

professor  of  biblical  literature  in  the  Andover 
Theological  Seminary,  says: 

“When  the  sacred  writer  in  Genesis  i  says  the  first 
day,  the  second  day,  etc.,  there  can  be  no  possible  doubt 
—none,  I  mean,  for  a  philologist,  let  a  geologist  think  as 
he  may — that  a  definite  day  of  the  week  is  meant.  .  .  . 
What  puts  this  beyond  all  question  (the  learned  theolo¬ 
gian  adds)  is,  that  the  writer  says,  specifically,  ‘  the  even-^ 
ing  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day ,  ‘  the  second  day, 


42  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

etc.  Now,  is  an  evening  and  a  morning  a  period  of  some 
thousands  of  years  ?  ...  If  Moses  has  given  us  an  erro¬ 
neous  account  of  the  creation,  so  be  it.  Let  it  come  out, 
and  let  us  have  the  whole.” 

To  these  honest  words  every  sincere  lover  of 
truth  will  give  assent. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  while  the  writer 
of  Genesis  taught  the  barbarian  hordes — who 
were  more  likely  driven  out  of  Egypt  than  that 
they  were  miraculously  led  out — that  the  world 
was  made  in  six  ordinary  days,  the  Persian  le¬ 
gend  represents  that  the  supreme  being  Ormuzd 
created  all  things  in  six  thousand  years,  and  that 
man  and  woman  were  both  made  in  the  sixth 
period  of  one  thousand  years,  the  man  being 
named  Adama  and  the  woman  Evah.  This 
would  at  first  seem  to  help  the  hypothesis  of 
some  modern  geologists  of  the  Hugh  Miller 
and  Dawson  schools,  but  in  point  of  fact  the 
“  indefinite-period  ”  theory  does  not,  after  all  the 
quirks  and  special  pleadings,  overcome  the  diffi¬ 
culty.  The  question  arises,  Why  six  indefinite 
periods  ?  One  indefinite  period  is  as  long  as 
six  or  sixty.  There  is  nothing  in  geology  to 
indicate  six  periods.  Lyell  counts  fourteen  gen¬ 
eral  periods  and  thirty-five  subordinate  periods. 
Hitchcock  specifies  ten  principal  formative  pe¬ 
riods.  One  need  only  read  the  attempts  to  rec¬ 
oncile  Genesis  and  geology  to  be  convinced  that 


43 


The  Common  Dogma. 

the  Mosaic  record  is  to  be  taken  in  its  obvious 
sense,  and  that  its  writer  knew  little  of  the  work 
of  creation  ;  but  he  probably  did  know,  or  might 
have  known,  that  among  those  for  whom  he 
wrote  there  were  none  of  sufficient  intelligence 
to  discover  and  expose  his  absurditi.es. 

Equally  incredible  is  the  Jewish  chronology  of 
the  creation  of  this  earth  six  thousand  years  ago, 
or,  to  speak  more  accurately,  just  five  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  eighty-eight  years  ago.  It 
is  hardly  necessary  to  say  in  this  connection 
anything  more  than  that  no  geologist  now 
speaks  of  anything  less  than  millions  of  years 
for  the  formation  of  this  globe.  Owen,  the 
well-known  writer  on  palaeontology,  speaks  of 
“  a  period  so  vast  that  the  mind,  in  the  endeavor 
to  realize,  is  strained  by  the  effort Dr.  Buck¬ 
ingham  and  Professor  Sedgwick  speak  of  “  im¬ 
measurable  periods  ”  and  “  countless  succeed- 
ing  ages.” 

We  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  of  this  mat¬ 
ter  more  fully  when  we  come  to  consider  the  age 
of  the  human  race  as  shown  by  modern  science. 
But  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  story  that  this 
earth  had  existed  three  days — that  is,  as  some 
modern  theologians  tell  us,  three  indefinite  pe¬ 
riods  of  thousands  if  not  millions  of  years, 
having  day  and  night,  morning  and  evening,  its 
surface  covered  with  grass,  herbs  and  fruit-trees 


44  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


— before  the  sun ,  moon  and  stars  were  created? 
And  then  in  a  single  day  these  vast  portions 
of  the  universe  were  created,  and  that,  too,  for 
the  special  benefit  of  this  pebble  of  a  globe — 
“  the  sun  to  rule  the  day  and  the  moon  to  rule 
the  night,”  with  the  stars  thrown  in  for  orna¬ 
ment  !  The  Rev.  John  Jasper  of  Richmond 
and  the  Rev.  De  Witt  Talmage  of  Brooklyn 
see  nothing  in  these  things  to  discredit  the  Mo¬ 
saic  narrative,  and  call  all  men  infidels  who  do ; 
yet  no  honest,  intelligent  investigator  can  read 
their  silly  sayings  in  the  light  of  modern  geology 
and  astronomy  without  laughing  at  the  drown¬ 
ing  victims  of  superstition  and  credulity  catching 
at  imaginary  straws.  Let  even  a  school-girl  of 
ordinary  attainments  read  the  Mosaic  account 
of  the  creation  of  the  sun  and  moon,  and  their 
relation  to  this  acorn  of  a  world,  and  then  turn 
to  her  elementary  astronomy,  and  there  learn 
that  the  sun  is  eight  hundred  and  sixty  thou¬ 
sand  miles  in  diameter,  enveloped  in  a  sea  of 
flame  thousands  of  miles  in  depth,  every  moment 
throwing  off  as  much  heat  as  could  be  generated 
by  all  the  coal  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 
Then  ask  her  whether  this  huge  globe  of  flam¬ 
ing  fire  was  made  to  “rule”  and  give  “light” 
to  this  speck  of  matter  upon  which  we  dwell,  not 
one-millionth  part  the  size  of  the  sun.  Then,  as 
we  consider  the  stars,  and  learn  that  the  one 


45 


The  Common  Dogma. 

nearest  to  us  is  tzventy-one  billions  of  miles  dis¬ 
tant,  and  the  next  thirty-severi  billions  of  miles, 
and  that  these  stars  are  suns  shining  by  their 
own  light — that  Sirius  is  a  sun  twenty-six  hun¬ 
dred  and  eighty-eight  times  larger  than  our  sun, 
and  that  we  have  some  knowledge  of  the  Polar 
Star,  two  hundred  and  ninety -two  billions  of  miles 
from  us,  and  that  there  are  stars  in  the  infinite 
abyss  so  distant  that  their  light  would  not  reach 
this  earth  in  five  millions  of  years,  though  light 
travels  at  the  rate  of  one  hundred  and  eighty- 
five  thousand  miles  in  a  second, — when  we  con¬ 
sider  these  wonderful  revelations  of  astronomy 
how  can  we  accept  as  literal  historic  truth  the 
story  of  Genesis,  made  more  and  more  incredible 
and  grotesque  as  it  has  been  altered  from  the 
common  fables  of  more  ancient  and  more  en¬ 
lightened  peoples  ? 

We  might  pursue  these  illustrations  to  an 
indefinite  extent,  but  enough  has  been  presented 
to  show  the  utter  incredibility  of  the  anony¬ 
mous,  unauthenticated,  comparatively  modern 
legend  upon  which  nearly  the  whole  religious 
world  relies  for  an  answer  to  the  question  rising 
naturally  in  every  thoughtful  heart:  Whence? 

It  is  only  fair  to  state  that  the  Mosaic  account 
of  creation  was  not  at  first  held  as  historic  truth. 
Early  Jewish  and  Christian  writers  regarded  it 
as  legendary  and  fanciful,  and  no  attempt  was 


46  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 

made  to  palm  it  off  as  real  until  the  demands 
of  dogmatic  theology  and  priestcraft  made  it 
necessary.  Maimonides,  Philo  and  Josephus 
among  the  Jews,  and  Origen,  St.  Augustine, 
Tertullian,  Clement  and  Ambrose  among  the 
Christian  Fathers,  fully  realized  that  there  was 
no  rational  way  to  interpret  Genesis  but  upon 
the  allegorical  hypothesis.  Since  it  is  well 
known  that  the  original  story  as  found  in  the 
Zendavesta  and  other  ancient  Oriental  scrip¬ 
tures  is  purely  a  fanciful  conception,  the  sub¬ 
stantial  copy  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  can  have 
no  better  foundation.  Nothing  can  be  more 
absurd  than  the  efforts  of  modern  theologians 
to  reconcile  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  with 
the  demonstrations  of  modern  science,  and  to 
make  the  account  consistent  with  itself.  Arbi¬ 
trary  translations  are  made,  new  versions  con¬ 
cocted  and  the  wildest  conceptions  of  human 
ingenuity  exhausted,  and  the  mystery  only 
thickens.  In  fact,  the  assumption  of  one  ab¬ 
surdity  only  makes  the  invention  of  many 
others  necessary,  just  as  one  lie  makes  many 
lies  necessary  to  give  color  of  truth  to  the 
first. 

“  What  tangled  webs  we  weave 
When  first  we  practise  to  deceive  !” 

It  has  been  well  said  that  “  a  fact  will  fit  every 
other  fact  in  the  universe,  because  it  is  the  prod- 


The  Common  Dogma. 


47 


uct  of  all  other  facts.  A  lie  will  fit  nothing  ex¬ 
cept  another  lie  made  for  the  express  purpose 
of  fitting  it.”  The  forced  interpretations  put 
upon  the  Hebrew  story  to  make  it  appear  to  be 
historical,  literal  truth  make  it  more  absurd 
than  it  would  otherwise  appear.  Think  of 
Adam,  created,  according  to  one  account,  on 
the  second  day,  and  Eve  on  the  sixth  day,  and 
then  accept  the  hypothesis  that  these  creative 
days  represent  long  periods  of  thousands  if  not 
millions  of  years  to  each  day,  so  that  four 
periods  of  thousands  of  years  passed  away 
before  Adam  had  his  Eve  to  be  a  helpmeet, 
and  what  a  long,  lonely  time  he  must  have 
had  !  It  would  not  have  been  strange  if  from 
sheer  solitariness  he  had  “taken  up”  with  some 
frisky  ape  or  vivacious  chimpanzee.  No  won¬ 
der  that  the  American  humorist  on  his  travels 
is  said  to  have  wept  when  he  was  shown  the 
grave  of  Adam.  Then  how  small  the  human 
census  must  have  been  for  unnumbered  ages  ! 
and  how  strange  the  fact  that  the  same  writer 
says  that  “  Adam  lived  nine  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  and  he  died”! — that  is,  he  died  several 
hundred  thousand  years  before  the  rib  was  taken 
from  his  side  to  make  him  a  wife.  One  cannot 
resist  the  temptation  to  be  facetious  in  contem¬ 
plating  the  unsuccessful  attempt  of  the  Creator 
to  make  Adam  satisfied  with  the  companionship 


48  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


of  the  beasts,  as  it  would  seem  that  it  was  only 
when  his  virgin  heart  failed  to  feel  the  painful 
pleasure  of  true  conjugal  love  toward  some 
animal  already  made  that  God  created  lovely 
woman.  If  you  want  your  seriousness  restored 
in  contemplating  this  subject,  you  can  read  the 
grave  and  learned  commentaries  of  orthodox 
theologians  on  the  pensive  passage  written  after 
Adam’s  inspection  of  the  “  greatest  show  on 
earth,”  which  says,  “  There  was  not  found  a 
helpmeet  for  him.” 

It  is  certainly  a  suggestive  fact  that  while 
nearly  all  Christendom  professes  to  receive  the 
Adam-and-Eve  story  as  a  true  record  of  biog¬ 
raphy  and  history,  the  subject  is  hardly  ever 
mentioned  outside  of  the  pulpit  except  as  a 
huge  joke.  Even  ministers  who  profess  to 
regard  the  story  as  divinely  inspired,  and  re¬ 
ceive  it  as  literal  truth,  have  been  known  to 
grow  merry  over  it,  and  to  propose  conun¬ 
drums  not  characterized  by  their  usual  well- 
known  reverence  for  sacred  things. 

It  is  a  great  misfortune,  and  full  of  evil  por¬ 
tent,  that  the  myths  of  Adam  and  Eve,  Noah’s 
deluge,  the  Tower  of  Babel,  the  stories  of  Sam¬ 
son  and  Jonah  and  Joshua,  and  many  other  leg¬ 
endary  tales,  are  palmed  off  upon  children  as 
historical  truths ,  when  with  the  increasing  light 
of  the  nineteenth  century  even  the  common 


49 


The  Common  Dogma . 

people  will  surely  discover  the  imposition,  and 
find  out  for  themselves  that  they  are  mere  fic¬ 
tions  of  the  Oriental  imagination.  They  will 
soon  be  able  to  point  out,  as  well-read  men 
now  can,  the  pagan  origin  of  these  tales  and 
their  simple  original  design  to  illustrate  some 
principle  or  passion  of  our  common  human 
nature. 

There  is  no  more  popular  institution  than  the 
Sunday-school.  The  Jewish  and  Christian  Scrip¬ 
tures  are  text-books  in  every  school,  and  among 
the  orthodox,  who  are  largely  in  the  majority, 
the  Bible  is  represented  to  be  fully  inspired  by 
infinite  Wisdom  in  every  word  and  letter.  Gen¬ 
esis  is  as  historically  true  as  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  or  the  Four  Gospels,  and  the  Song  of 
Solomon  is  as  really  a  theograph — a  divine  writ¬ 
ing — as  the  Psalms  or  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
Suppose  a  bright  pupil  in  one  of  our  public 
grammar  schools  approaches  his  Sunday-school 
teacher,  Bible  in  hand,  and  inquires  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  letters  and  figures  placed  at  the 
head  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis:  a.m.  i,  b. c. 
4004.  He  is  of  course  told  that  A.  m.  means 
Anno  Mundi,  the  age  of  the  world,  and  that  B.  c. 
means  before  Christ,  so  that  4004  years  before 
the  Christian  era  the  world  was  one  year  old  ! 
The  meek-looking  scholar  may  not  disquiet  his 
pious  instructor  with  “  infidel  ”  questions,  but 
4 


50  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


he  studies  geology,  geography,  astronomy  and 
other  sciences,  and  he  soon  realizes  that  the 
lessons  of  the  day-school  are  in  many  things 
flatly  contradictory  to  the  lessons  of  the  Bible- 
school ;  and  as  the  teachings  of  the  day-school 
are  corroborated  by  demonstrated  facts  that  are 
beyond  controversy,  and  the  lessons  of  the  Sun¬ 
day-school  are  not  only  not  so  supported,  but 
are  often  absurd  and  contradictory  upon  their 
very  surface,  he  either  openly  or  secretly  decides 
in  favor  of  his  secular  lessons,  and  rejects  the 
sacred  lessons  altogether,  and  begins  to  be 
amused  when  his  pastor  quotes  as  historical 
truths  what  even  children  know  to  be  mere 
fanciful  stories.  Then  he  is  gravely  told  that 
if  everything  in  the  Bible  is  not  true,  it  is  of 
no  account,  as  nothing  in  it  can  be  true.  The 
preacher  is  taken  at  his  word :  the  Bible  is 
scouted,  and  often  with  it  the  whole  of  religion 
and  morality.  Who  is  to  blame?  That  much 
good  is  done  through  instruction  in  Sunday- 
schools  cannot  be  denied,  because  much  that  is 
true  and  good  and  elevating  is  faithfully  taught ; 
but  who  can  doubt  that  much  of  what  is  taught 
is  puerile,  false,  unscientific  and  demoralizing  ? 
When  it  comes  to  be  fully  realized  that  there  is 
no  conflict  between  science  and  real  religion  and 
true  morality,  that  the  dogmas  of  the  dominant 
theology  are  based  upon  unscientific  myths  and 


5i 


The  Common  Dogma. 

a  false  philosophy,  we  shall  have  less  atheism 
and  agnosticism,  and  more  private  purity  and 
public  integrity.  It  is  a  most  obvious  fact  that 
the  teachings  of  the  Sunday-school  and  the  pul¬ 
pit  are  largely  responsible  for  the  increasing 
materialism  and  scepticism  of  our  day. 

Every  intelligent  man  knows  that  not  only  the 
story  of  the  miraculous  creation  of  a  first  man 
and  woman  on  a  certain  day  is  an  Oriental  poem, 
but  that  the  principal  events  recorded  in  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  are  mainly  mythical  and  legendary,  hav¬ 
ing  perhaps  some  foundation  in  persons  then  liv¬ 
ing  or  events  then  transpiring,  but  nevertheless 
largely  borrowed  from  the  traditions  and  writ¬ 
ings  of  older  and  more  cultivated  nations  ;  so 
that  modern  scholars  and  explorers  can  show  just 
where  these  sacred  novels  came  from,  and  that 
they  were  well  known  among  many  nations  of 
antiquity  long  centuries  before  the  alleged  rescue 
of  the  Hebrew  babe  from  the  ark  of  bulrushes 
on  the  Nile.  Even  that  pretty  story  has  its  par¬ 
allels  in  earlier  annals,  and  is  no  doubt  greatly 
embellished,  if,  indeed,  it  had  any  foundation  in 
fact.  The  infant  Bacchus  was  confined  in  a 
chest,  and  by  order  of  the  king  of  Thebes  was 
cast  upon  the  Nile,  and,  like  Moses,  had  two 
mothers.  When  Osiris  was  cast  into  the  river 
he  floated  to  Phoenicia,  was  rescued,  and  his 
mother  became  his  nurse.  Substantially  the 


52 


Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 


same  stories  are  recorded  of  Demeter,  and  also 
of  the  infant  Perseus  and  others. 

We  have  purposely  omitted,  thus  far,  the  sci¬ 
entific  argument  regarding  the  origin  of  man, 
preferring  to  present  this  in  discussions  to 
follow.  The  rejection  of  the  ancient  fanciful 
tale  does  not  leave  us  in  doubt  and  confusion 
regarding  this  matter,  of  so  much  interest  to 
every  thoughtful  person  and  having  such  an 
important  bearing  upon  so  many  questions  of 
absorbing  interest.  God  has  written  a  book 
based  upon  the  eternal  facts  of  Nature,  and 
though  we  do  not  fully  understand  the  divine 
hieroglyphics,  we  have  at  least  learned  the 
alphabet  and  can  spell  out  words  and  sentences 
which  pour  floods  of  light  upon  subjects  which 
have  too  long  been  treated  in  poems  of  the  im¬ 
agination. 

And  right  here  it  is  proper  to  admit  that  the 
allegory  found  among  all  enlightened  nations  of 
ancient  times,  and  substantially  copied  in  our 
Jewish  Genesis,  though  fanciful  and  even  absurd 
as  to  details,  nevertheless  contains  some  things 
upon  which  all  rational  men  in  all  countries  and 
in  all  times  have  agreed,  and  which  do  not  con¬ 
flict  with  the  deductions  of  right  reason  and  the 
discoveries  of  science.  We  cordially  accept  the 
doctrine  of  a  wonderful  creation  by  a  divine 
Creator,  the  earthy  origin  of  physical  man,  the 


! 


The  Common  Dogma. 


53 


spiritual  nature  of  man  as  distinct  from  his 
eri al  body,  the  oneness  and  natural  unity 
of  man  and  woman,  and  the  universal  preva¬ 
lence  of  the  male  and  female  principle.  To 
these  questions  attention  will  hereafter  be 
given. 

All  nations  in  all  periods,  the  most  benighted 
as  well  as  the  most  enlightened,  have  had  their 
cosmogonies  (theories  of  creation)  and  their 
theodicies  (theories  of  the  introduction  of  nat¬ 
ural  and  moral  evil) ;  but  it  has  been  common 
for  Christian  people  to  assert  that  but  for  our 
Old-Testament  records  we  should  be  for  ever 
in  doubt  on  these  important  questions.  They 
are  greatly  shocked  when  they  are  told  that  the 
claim  is  not  justified  by  facts,  and  that  about  all 
that  can  be  learned  from  the  Jewish  Genesis  was 
known  by  preceding  and  contemporary  genera¬ 
tions,  and  that  much  of  what  has  been  regarded 

o 

as  veritable  history  has  been  proved  to  be  the 
merest  fiction. 

To  admit  this  is  of  course  to  give  up  our 
cherished  faith  in  the  doctrine  of  the  absolutely 
infallible  character  of  the  writings  accredited 
to  Moses,  that  these  venerable  writings  were 
fully  inspired  of  God,  and  that  nothing  which 
they  contain  can  with  safety  be  doubted.  But 
many  men  besides  Bishop  Colenso  are  begin¬ 
ning  to  learn  that  the  interests  of  truth  do  not 


54 


Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


require  the  defence  of  the  absurd  and  impossible 
— that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Pentateuch  of  any 
real  importance  that  men  have  not  found  out 
without  a  miraculous  written  revelation  from 
Heaven.  Every  writing,  ancient  and  modern, 
must  stand  on  its  own  merits.  A  writing  is  true 
or  false  regardless  of  the  question  of  its  author¬ 
ship.  Truth  is  essential  and  eternal,  and  needs 
neither  special  inspiration  nor  miracle  to  mani¬ 
fest  it.  There  is  an  inspiration  common  to  all 
men,  and  some  men  are  more  receptive  than 
others,  and  the  many  have  always  profited  by 
the  superior  gifts  of  the  few.  While  the  Church 
claims  infallibility  for  Genesis,  and  insists  that 
we  must  receive  the  Garden-of-Eden  and  the 
Adam-and-Eve  story  as  literal  history,  written 
by  the  divine  dictation,  increasing  multitudes 
will  throng  public  places  to  laugh  at  the  “  mis¬ 
takes  of  Moses  ”  and  the  preposterous  pretences 
of  pulpit  prophets  as  ridiculed  by  witty  orators. 

Let  not  the  friends  of  true  religion  and  moral¬ 
ity  be  disquieted.  The  foundations  stand  sure, 
and,  though  the  dreams  of  childhood  vanish,  the 
rising  sun  will  dispel  the  mists  of  error’s  long 
night  and  gild  with  glory  the  dark  places  of  this 
improving  globe.  When  Church  creeds  are 
revised  and  made  to  conform  to  the  light  of 
to-day — when  ministers  cease  to  stultify  them¬ 
selves  by  defending  hoary  absurdities,  and  no 


55 


The  Common  Dogma . 

longer  raise  the  odious  cry  of  “  infidelity  ” 
against  independent  and  progressive  thinkers 
— when  men  learn  to  apply  reason  and  com¬ 
mon  sense  to  religious  questions,  as  they  do  to 
political  ones, — true  religion  will  shine  with 
more  refulgent  flame,  and  practical  morality 
will  be  recognized  as  the  highest  wisdom.  It 
is  the  teaching  of  ancient  fables  for  divine  ver¬ 
ities  that  brings  the  whole  subject  of  religion 
into  disrepute  and  drives  the  more  thoughtful 
men  and  women  into  scepticism  and  agnos¬ 
ticism.  The  real  infidels  are  those  who  for  any 
reason  are  disloyal  to  truth — who  sacrifice  reason 
upon  the  altar  of  dogmatic  creeds  and  a  sickly 
sacerdotalism.  It  will  be  shown  before  these 
discussions  close  that  what  is  incredible  in  the 
creeds  can  be  given  up — not  only  without  loss 
to  true  religion,  but  greatly  to  its  advantage. 
We  have  too  long  been  hampered  by  Jewish 
and  heathen  shackles,  and  many  men  have  de¬ 
termined  henceforth  to  walk  with  free  limbs  on 
the  broad  highway  of  truth.  We  will  honestly 
admit  the  conclusions  of  cultured  reason  and 
the  demonstrations  of  modern  science,  but  we 
will  not  admit  that  there  is  any  necessary  con¬ 
flict  between  these  and  the  essential  principles 
of  that  religion  which  mainly  consists  in  rever¬ 
ent  worshipfulness  toward  God  and  perfect  right- 
doing  in  all  our  relations  to  men.  The  people 


56  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

will  become  familiar  with  the  conclusions  of  a 
truly  independent  scholarship,  and  the  influence 
of  the  pew  will  more  and  more  be  felt  in  the 
pulpit.  Even  now  priestly  platitudes  are  nau¬ 
seating  to  the  man  of  average  intelligence,  and 
he  will  not  much  longer  silently  submit  to  have 
his  children  taught  that  of  which  they  will  be 
sure  to  be  ashamed  before  they  reach  their 
majority.  The  successful  champion  of  religion 
will  be  found  in  the  robust,  courageous  man 
who  dares  to  follow  wherever  truth  leads  the 
way,  firmly  believing  that  truth  lies  at  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  all  righteousness. 

Professor  John  Fiske  has  well  said  in  his  Cos¬ 
mic  Philosophy :  “The  experience  of  many  ages 
of  speculative  revolution  has  shown  that  while 
knowledge  grows  and  old  beliefs  fall  away,  and 
creed  succeeds  to  creed,  nevertheless  that  faith 
which  makes  the  innermost  essence  of  religion 
is  indestructible.” 


III. 


THE  EVOLUTION  HYPOTHESIS  OF  THE  ORIGIN 

OF  HUMANITY. 

IT  has  been  briefly  shown  that  the  popular 
theory  of  the  miraculous  origin  of  man  in  a 
comparatively  recent  period  rests  entirely  upon 
documentary  evidence  of  a  very  uncertain  and 
contradictory  character.  The  question  now 
comes  up  whether  anything  can  be  known 
upon  this  important  subject  if  a  special  divine 
revelation  has  not  been  made  and  written  down 
in  a  book.  If  we  reject  the  so-called  Mosaic 
account,  are  we  not  left  in  total  ignorance  upon 
this  and  all  collateral  questions  affecting  the 
history  and  doom  of  our  race  ?  Let  us  take 
a  careful  survey  of  the  field  of  science  and  see 
whether  we  can  find  a  satisfactory  hypothesis 
regarding  this  great  question  of  universal  in¬ 
terest. 

The  first  thing  that  settles  down  into  a  rational 
conviction  as  we  look  out  upon  the  universe  is 
that  all  things,  from  a  pebble  to  a  planet,  are 
under  the  reign  of  law  fixed  and  uniform,  and 
that  the  same  laws  that  rule  upon  this  globe 

57 


58  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 

prevail  in  the  most  distant  spheres.  Regarding* 
some  things  we  know  as  much  of  distant  worlds 
as  we  do  of  our  own.  The  spectroscope  has 
taught  us  that  the  huge  globes  that  revolve  in 
illimitable  space  are  a  growth,  a  product,  and 
we  can  now  determine  approximately  their  com¬ 
parative  ages  and  the  materials  of  which  they 
are  composed.  We  have  reason  for  thinking 
that  Jupiter  and  Saturn  are  even  now  in  the 
primary  stages  of  formation,  and  that  the  for¬ 
mer  is  heavier  than  water,  and  the  latter  not  so 
light  as  cork,  as  was  formerly  supposed.  We 
are  confident  that  Mars — and  probably  Venus — 
is  very  much  like  our  earth,  but  that  Jupiter  and 
Saturn  are  too  youthful  to  have  attained  the 
same  maturity ;  while  the  decrepit  old  moon  is 
in  the  decadence  of  her  second  childhood. 

These  well-established  facts  of  modern  science 
show  conclusively  the  fundamental  principle  of 
the  unity  of  the  whole  creation.  We  cannot 
doubt  that  the  same  laws  prevail  in  all  por¬ 
tions  of  the  unbounded  universe.  Poets  sing  of 
“  Chaos  and  old  Night,”  but  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  chaos  in  this  or  in  any  other  world. 
“Cosmos”  has  made  the  word  “chaos”  obsolete 
as  applied  to  the  material  universe.  All  things 
are  governed  by  uniform  law.  The  lightning 
that  tears  to  pieces  the  rocky  peak  of  the  cloud- 
capped  mountain  is  as  much  governed  by  law 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis .  59 

as  the  simple  spark  of  electricity  that  speeds 
along  the  ocean  cable  and  can  only  deliver  its 
message  by  reflection  in  a  mirror.  The  cyclone 
that  devastates  a  prairie  is  as  much  governed  by 
law  as  the  summer  zephyr  that  cools  the  fevered 
brow  of  the  weary  farmer.  Rivers  of  fire  and 
smoke  that  burst  from  the  crater  of  Vesuvius  are 
as  really  under  law  as  the  tiny  flame  that  kindles 
at  the  tip  of  a  parlor-match.  Law  is  eternal  and 
universal,  and  has  never  been  known  to  be  sus¬ 
pended  or  to  become  inoperative. 

No  man  can  make  himself  familiar  with  the 
demonstrated  facts  of  astronomy,  geology,  palae¬ 
ontology  and  their  kindred  sciences  without 
being  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  one  of  the 
most  obvious  characteristics  of  the  constitution 
of  Nature  is  that  principle  or  law  denominated 
Evolution.  Strip  this  simple  word  of  its  much- 
perverted  sense,  and  it  merely  means  the  uniform 
processes  in  which  every  product  has  an  antece¬ 
dent,  every  effect  a  cause,  and  one  thing  follows 
another  and  grows  out  of  another  in  orderly  suc¬ 
cession. 

Science  shows  that  this  principle  not  only 
governs  the  world  at  the  present  time,  but  that 
it  dominated  the  processes  by  which  it  was 
made  at  first.  What  was  long  known  as  the 
“  nebular  hypothesis  ”  has  not  been  established 
in  its  minute  details,  and  never  can  be,  but  its 


6o  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


general  principles  are  so  consonant  with  the 
observed  behavior  of  matter  that  men  of  learn¬ 
ing  have  adopted  it  as  beyond  rational  contro¬ 
versy.  It  is  briefly  this :  That  the  substance 
of  which  this  world  was  formed  was  a  nebulous 
vapor,  a  fiery  mist,  probably  thrown  off  from  the 
sun  in  its  revolutions  as  sparks  are  thrown  off 
from  a  whirling  wheel  in  pyrotechnic  exhibi¬ 
tions  ;  and,  taken  up  by  the  law  of  gravitation, 
formed  an  orbit,  and  as  it  cooled  down  a  crust 
was  created  upon  the  outer  rim,  which  by  the 
law  of  cohesion  became  solid ;  for  millions  of 
years  its  revolutions  rounded  this  globe,  increas¬ 
ing  the  thickness  of  its  crust  or  shell  and  depos¬ 
iting  the  various  materials  of  which  it  is  com¬ 
posed,  until,  after  the  lapse  of  unnumbered  ages, 
it  became  possible  for  life  to  exist  in  its  lowest 
forms ;  but  it  was  not  until  millions  of  years 
more  had  passed  away  that  man  appeared  and 
claimed  this  globe  as  his  dwelling-place. 

In  the  light  of  geologic  science  we  conjecture 
that  our  earth  has  cooled  down  from  a  molten 
mass  and  become  spherical  by  revolution ;  and 
man  by  long  research  has  been  able  to  classify 
and  appropriately  name  the  numerous  periods 
and  epochs  through  which  it  has  passed,  and  to 
show  that  the  work  of  improvement  is  still  going 
on  under  the  operation  of  the  same  laws  which 
first  gave  it  form  and  motion.  By  the  great 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis.  61 

upheavals  of  time  the  earth’s  crust  to  about 
twenty-five  miles  in  depth  has  been  exposed  to 
human  inspection,  and  while  we  cannot  estimate 
in  definite  numbers  the  years  and  the  ages  em¬ 
ployed  in  the  different  formations,  we  are  certain 
as  to  the  relative  order  of  these  marked  eeolocric 
periods. 

No  intelligent  man  can  rationally  doubt  the 
great  antiquity  of  this  globe.  Darwin  estimates 
obvious  marks  in  England  as  more  than  three 
hundred  millions  years  old,  and  estimates  made 
by  high  scientific  authority  upon  facts  found  in 
certain  drifts  on  the  continent  of  Europe  double 
these  figures.  We  attach  little  importance  to 
definite  calculations.  We  can  calculate  until 
figures  surpass  the  power  of  enumeration  and 
we  are  lost  in  the  incomprehensible,  and  then 
only  approach  the  truth  by  millions  or  hundreds 
of  millions  of  years.  But  we  are  not  in  doubt 
as  to  the  order  of  events  and  their  attendant  cir¬ 
cumstances.  We  know,  and  can  demonstrate  by 
facts  innumerable,  that  in  the  formation  and  im¬ 
provement  of  this  material  world  the  principle 
or  law  of  evolution  has  been  in  full  operation, 
and  that  the  earth  in  all  its  constituents  is  a 
product,  a  development — one  thing  following 
another  and  evolving  out  of  another  under 
the  operation  of  well-known  laws.  If  the  world 
was  made  in  six  days  or  in  six  indefinite  periods, 


62  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


then  the  Creator  must  have  exercised  infinite 
skill  to  mislead  his  human  children  and  to  make 
it  appear  as  if  unnumbered  ages  had  been  em¬ 
ployed  in  a  work  which  was  done  miraculously 
by  his  simple  fiat.  A  minute  examination  of 
the  surface  of  this  earth  to  a  depth  of  more  than 
a  score  of  miles  clearly  indicates  the  slow  but 
sure  work  of  progressive  development  and  evo¬ 
lution. 

This  same  principle  of  development  also  applies 
to  the  animal  creation  as  we  trace  it  back  to  its 
beginnings.  Below  a  well-known  geologic  pe¬ 
riod  no  traces  of  human  beings  are  found,  but 
the  remains  of  apes  and  monkeys  exist  in 
abundance,  and  as  we  go  lower  down  or  farther 
back  in  geologic  time  these  remains  become  less 
perfect,  until  in  still  lower  beds  they  entirely 
disappear.  Mammals  appear  in  still  lower  de¬ 
posits,  and  these  too  deteriorate,  and  as  we  go 
back  the  largest  of  them  are  about  the  size  of  a 
cat  and  begin  to  assume  the  appearance  of  birds. 
As  we  push  our  investigations  to  lower  depths 
in  the  earth’s  crust  we  find  reptiles,  and  as  we 
go  still  lower  these  likewise  disappear,  and  am¬ 
phibians  are  exposed  to  view,  and  continue  until 
the  early  periods  of  the  Carboniferous  Age,  when 
they  in  turn  vanish.  As  we  dig  down  into  the 
Devonian  Period  enormous  fishes  are  found,  and 
for  millions  of  years  these  decrease  in  size  until 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis .  63 

they  too  slip  away  from  observation.  Still 
we  descend  lower,  and  find  shells,  once  the 
homes  of  living  creatures,  some  of  them  twenty 
feet  long,  and  we  follow  them  back  to  a  period 
when  they  were  not  larger  than  a  finger-nail. 
We  continue  our  excavations  through  the  Silu¬ 
rian  and  Cambrian  deposits  until  we  lose  all 
traces  of  living  creatures,  unless  the  fan-like 
Protozoa  shall  be  found  to  be  an  exception. 

We  thus  trace  back  animal  life  to  mere 
masses  of  jelly  or  irregular  cells,  and  millions 
of  years  rolled  away  before  a  single  vertebrate 
animal  appeared.  The  fishes  then  followed  in 
slow  procession,  and  then  the  periods  of 
the  frogs,  the  birds  and  the  reptiles,  mark¬ 
ing  several  long  geological  epochs.  In  the 
lapse  of  ages  followed  the  huge  mammals  now 
extinct,  and  after  them  the  existing  fauna, 
with  man  as  the  crowning  product.  This 
same  principle  of  progress  marks  the  entire 
animal  kingdom.  Professor  Huxley  professes 
to  take  the  modern  horse,  the  most  beautiful 
of  all  domestic  animals,  and  to  trace  him  back 
through  long  geologic  periods  until  he  finds 
him  not  larger  than  a  fox,  and  yet  with  certain 
marks  of  limb  and  hoof  that  show  him  to  be 
the  legitimate  ancestor  of  our  modern  thorough¬ 
bred  race-horse. 

The  same  principle  of  development  prevails 


64  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

even  in  the  vegetable  world,  as  all  well  know. 
Our  most  delicious  fruits  have  evolved  from 
bitter  and  unpromising  beginnings — the  apple 
from  the  crabtree,  the  peach  from  a  poisonous 
shrub  of  Persia,  and  some  of  our  most  nutri¬ 
tious  vegetables  from  worthless  sea-weeds.  The 
most  rustic  farmer  acknowledges  this  principle 
of  development  in  the  selection  of  his  seed- 
grains  and  in  the  improvement  of  his  live-stock. 

All  this  is  preliminary  to  the  great  question 
*  of  the  origin  of  humanity.  Does  the  principle 
of  evolution  apply  to  the  origin  and  progress 
of  our  race  ?  Is  it  a  fundamental  article  in  the 
creed  of  science  that  man  has  been  evolved 
from  very  low  beginnings,  and  developed  by 
slow  and  gradual  processes  to  his  present  proud 
position  ?  These  questions  are  answered  in  the 
affirmative  by  many  modern  scholars  of  such 
high  respectability  as  to  entitle  them  at  least  to 

respectful  consideration. 

According  to  Huxley  and  Haeckel  and  many 
others,  a  jelly-like  substance  found  in  the  bottom 
of  the  ocean,  a  simple  lump  of  mucus  or  albu¬ 
minous  matter,  which  they  denominate  bcithybias , 
is  claimed  to  be  the  origin  of  all  animal  life  on 
this  earth.  This  discovery — wonderful  if  true — 
was  announced  in  1868  by  Professor  Huxley, 
and  ten  years  later  Strauss,  in  his  Old  Faith  and 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis .  65 

New ,  used  it  to  span  the  chasm  existing  between 
the  inorganic  and  organic  in  Nature.  It  is  only 
honest  to  state  in  this  connection  that  in  deep- 
sea  soundings  made  by  the  English  ship  Chal¬ 
lenger  in  1875  this  glutinous  protoplasmic  mass 
was  found  to  be  mainly  sulphate  of  lime,  which 
when  dissolved  crystallized  like  gypsum.  The 
materialistic  theory  is  that  out  of  this  formless 
deposit  without  organs  came  all  existing  organ¬ 
isms,  that  the  moneron  became  a  cell,  and  that 
the  development  of  the  human  race  by  the 
operation  of  natural  selection  and  the  conser¬ 
vation  of  force  was  only  a  question  of  time.  It 
does  not  comport  with  our  present  design  to 
mention  the  points  from  which  this  bold  hypoth¬ 
esis  is  argued,  nor  to  enumerate  the  grounds 
upon  which  a  large  number  of  scientists  dissent 
from  it.  The  water  is  too  deep  and  rough  for 
ordinary  navigators,  and  we  do  not  intend  to 
be  dragged  from  our  moorings,  but  prefer  safely 
to  ride  at  anchor  in  a  harbor  in  which  even  little 
boats  are  safe. 

It  is  a  fact  within  our  present  knowledge  that 
the  individual  man  is  now  developed  from  a  cell 
or  egg  so  small  that  it  merely  covers  the  point 
of  a  cambric  needle,  and  can  only  be  accurately 
examined  by  the  aid  of  a  powerful  microscope. 
Professor  Draper  says :  “  All  animals  proceed 
from  eggs  as  simple  in  structure  as  the  simplest 
5 


65  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 

infusoria,  and  no  art  can  distinguish  one  of  the 
highest  class  from  one  of  the  lowest.  Pro¬ 
fessor  Clark  of  Harvard  says  :  “  \  ou  could  no 
more  tell  the  one  from  the  other  than  you  could 
distinguish  a  drop  of  water  from  Cochituate 
Lake  from  one  from  the  Mystic  River.”  This 
simple  speck  of  matter,  under  certain  conditions, 
enlarges  and  undergoes  marvellous  changes,  un¬ 
til  in  three-fourths  of  a  year  a  perfect  miniature 
man  is  produced  with  his  wonderfully  complex 
organism.  Professor  Agassiz  says  of  the  human 
brain  in  its  development:  “Pirst  it  becomes  a 
brain  resembling  that  of  a  fish,  then  it  grows 
into  the  form  of  that  of  a  reptile,  then  into  that 
of  a  bird,  then  into  that  of  a  mammiferous 
quadruped,  and  finally  it  assumes  the  form  of 
a  human  brain.”  Some  eminent  persons  think 
this  quite  fanciful  and  not  sustained  by  facts. 
But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  man  is  evolved 
from  a  mere  speck  of  matter,  and  that  there  is, 
in  their  early  stages,  no  perceptible  difference 
between  the  embryos  of  frogs,  fishes,  dogs  and 
the  human  embryo.  We  know  that  what  is 
true  of  trees  and  vegetables  and  the  inferior 
animals  is  true  of  man.  He  is  evolved  by 
slow,  natural  and  well-known  processes  from  a 
very  small  and  apparently  inadequate  speck  of 
matter.  No  reliable  evidence  exists  of  a  man 
having  ever  been  produced  in  any  other  way. 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis .  67 

Science  and  human  observation  and  experience 
are  in  perfect  accord  in  this  matter.  Man  now¬ 
adays  is  a  development,  a  product  of  evolution. 

From  the  individual  man,  as  we  know  him 
now,  and  his  immediate  origin,  we  press  our 
inquiries  back  to  a  remote  period,  the  childhood 
of  our  race,  with  a  view  of  finding  out,  if  pos¬ 
sible,  the  origin  of  the  first  human  pair  or  pairs 
from  whom  all  men  and  women  have  descended 
by  natural  generation. 

The  first  thing  that  startles  us  in  this  direc¬ 
tion  is  the  almost  inconceivable  antiquity  of  the 
human  race,  the  almost  incalculable  number  of 
ages  that  men  have  dwelt  upon  this  globe.  It 
is  useless  to  attempt  to  state  this  in  fixed  and 
accurate  numbers.  We  can  most  certainly  point 
out  the  order  of  geological  and  historical  periods , 
but  it  is  sheer  presumption  to  attempt  to  use 
specific  dates,  as  we  do  in  recording  events  of 
modern  occurrence.  We  only  know  that  man 
has  been  here  for  an  incalculable  time,  covering 
thousands  if  not  millions  of  years.  Professor 
Draper  wrote:  “It  is  difficult  to  assign  a 
shorter  date  to  the  last  glaciation  of  Europe 
than  a  quarter  of  a  million  years,  and  human 
existence  antedates  that.”  Even  in  this  New 
World,  so  called,  there  is  evidence  most  con¬ 
clusive  that  man  has  existed  for  more  than 
one  hundred  thousand  years,  by  the  discov- 


68  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


ery  of  human  remains  in  such  a  situation  as 
to  demonstrate  their  undisturbed  repose  while 
several  successive  forests  have  grown  and  de¬ 
cayed  over  them.  Books  upon  this  subject  are 
numerous,  and  all  can  examine  for  themselves. 
The  latest  conclusion  of  modern  scholarship  is, 
that  man  has  existed  on  this  earth  for  millions 
if  not  billions  of  years. 

We  now  take  man  as  we  find  him,  and,  with¬ 
out  attempting  to  trace  his  history  in  detail 
through  the  unnumbered  ages  of  his  existence, 
we  make  one  general  observation,  and  find  that 
the  same  principle  of  evolution  that  applies  to 
this  material  world,  to  all  worlds  and  to  the  in¬ 
ferior  animals,  applies  with  equal  certainty  to  the 
origin  and  development  of  man.  Instead  of 
finding  primeval  man — if  indeed  we  have  found 
the  truly  primal  man,  which  is  so  doubtful  as  to 
admit  of  a  flat  denial,  but  as  far  back  as  we  have 
been  able  to  trace  him — we  find  him  not  the 
Adonis  or  Apollo  described  in  Milton’s  Paradise 
Lost ,  but  an  ape- like  being  with  a  forehead  as 
“  villainously  low  ”  as  any  deluded  damsel  of 
modern  times  could  desire  to  make  hers  appear 
— stunted,  brawny,  coarse,  long-armed,  dumb, 
stupid,  not  erect,  but  his  hairy  body  forming 
an  angle  of  seventy-five  or  eighty-five  degrees, 
wandering  through  forests,  first  using  a  stick 
as  a  weapon,  living  on  worms  and  roots,  fruits, 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis.  69 

inferior  animals — sometimes,  a  very  cannibal, 
eating  his  own  kin — living  in  caves,  having 
little  knowledge  of  himself  or  of  the  world 
around  him.  But  let  us  not  be  ashamed  of 
our  ancestry.  The  simple  stick  will  in  a  few 
thousand  years  be  superseded  by  a  stone — at 
first  not  ground,  but  afterward  sharpened ;  and 
then,  as  we  follow  on  through  hundreds  of  thou¬ 
sands  if  not  millions  of  years — through  the  ages 
of  Bronze  and  Iron  and  other  marked  periods — 
we  shall  find  that  the  ape-like  man  has  become 
a  God-like  philosopher  and  stands  erect  amid 
the  splendid  civilizations  of  Greece  and  Rome, 
Egypt  and  Babylon,  a  worthy  predecessor  of 
Bacon  and  Shakespeare,  Goethe  and  Chan- 
ning. 

The  stream  of  human  progress  has  not  always 
been  uninterrupted.  There  have  been  ups  and 
downs  in  human  history.  The  race  has  had  its 
cycles,  but  the  general  and  ultimate  tendency  has 
been  upward ,  so  that  the  contrast  between  man 
as  we  first  find  him  and  man  as  we  now  know 
him  is  almost  infinite;  and  no  wonder  that  we 
are  at  first  tempted  to  deny  our  relationship  to 
the  naked  savages  of  primeval  periods. 

The  particular  point  to  be  here  emphasized  is, 
that  scientific  discovery  clearly  demonstrates  the 
fact  of  the  gradual  and  steady  general  improve¬ 
ment  of  the  human  race  from  the  earliest  pe- 


70  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

riods  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  until 
the  present  time.  Many  learned  works  have 
been  published,  with  illustrations,  showing  the 
gradual  development  and  progress  of  the  human 
brain  and  of  all  those  features  which  distinguish 
man  from  the  brute ;  to  which  we  must  refer  for 
particulars. 

All  that  has  yet  been  said  is  preliminary  to 
the  main  question,  Whence?  What  is  the  origin 
of  the  first  man  ? 

Let  us  meet  this  question  fairly  and  squarely. 
Certain  scientists  have  maintained  the  hypoth¬ 
esis  that  man  has  been  evolved  from  inferior 
animal  forms  to  which  the  term  brute  is  strictly 
applicable.  This  theory  can  be  made  to  appear 
very  plausible  in  view  of  certain  resemblances 
between  physical  man  and  the  inferior  creatures. 
It  is  said  that  human  anatomy  was  studied  from 
the  skeletons  of  apes  and  monkeys  down  to  the 
sixteenth  century.  The  five  fingers  of  the  hu¬ 
man  hand  are  said  to  be  indicated  in  the  five 
bones  in  the  foot  of  the  muskrat,  in  the  flipper 
of  the  fish,  the  paw  of  the  bear  and  the  wing  of 
the  bat.  A  great  many  “  pointers  ”  are  specified 
by  the  advocates  of  this  hypothesis  which  can¬ 
not  here  be  introduced.  Those  who  oppose  this 
assumption  point  out  a  great  many  objections  to 
it,  and  affirm  that  there  is  between  men  and 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis.  7 1 

brutes  many  points  of  dissimilarity  which  can¬ 
not  be  reconciled  with  the  idea  of  their  essential 
unity — that  there  is  such  a  contrast  between  the 
highest  anthropoid  ape  and  the  lowest  man  that 
it  is  impossible  to  connect  them.  There  is  a 
vast  chasm  which  has  not  been  bridged.  There 
is  a  “missing  link”— nay,  a  series  of  links — 
which  have  not  been  found.  It  is  not  accord¬ 
ant  with  our  purpose  to  enter  this  controversy. 
Even  if  it  were  proved  that  men  are  the  lineal 
descendants  of  apes,  that  would  not  answer  the 
question  we  have  under  consideration.  It  would 
only  remove  it  farther  back  and  give  rise  to  the 
query,  Where  did  the  ape  come  from  that  was 
the  ancestor  of  man  ? 

Many  other  questions  would  come  up — such 
as  these :  When  did  the  ape  cease  to  be  an  ape 
and  become  a  man  ?  Where  shall  we  draw  the 
line  of  demarcation  between  apehood  and  man¬ 
hood  ? 

Other  investigators  take  the  ground  that  man 
is  sui  generis ,  and  that,  while  he  has  certain 
physical  resemblances  to  inferior  animals,  he 
has  no  essential  connection  with  them ;  that 
humanity  is  a  separate,  independent  and  dis¬ 
tinct  species — so  to  speak,  an  original  creation ; 
that  primitive  man  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
years  ago  was  coarse  and  gross,  but  never¬ 
theless  a  man ,  very  superior  to  the  highest  apes 


72  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


— in  many  things  like  an  ape,  and  yet  a  distinct 
species,  a  primary  product  of  creation.  This 
too  can  be  presented  in  a  very  attractive  man¬ 
ner,  and  by  some  is  supposed  to  be  more  in 
accordance  with  our  self-respect  and  dignity. 
But  even  this  does  not  answer  the  question, 
What  was  the  origin  of  man  ?  Evidence  of  the 
existence  of  man  is  lost  in  the  cavernous  struc¬ 
tures  of  remote  geologic  periods,  and  it  is  impos¬ 
sible  to  predict  whether  he  can  ever  be  traced 
farther  back  than  has  already  been  done.  In 
denying  the  development  of  man  from  the  lower 
animals  we  do  but  take  the  other  horn  of  the 
great  dilemma,  and  get  no  nearer  to  the  great 
question  of  humanity,  Whence? 

It  is  only  ingenuous  to  admit  that  the  Dar¬ 
winian  theory  of  the  animal  origin  of  man  is 
the  one  most  in  favor  with  the  weight  of  bio¬ 
logical  authority ;  and  yet  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  number  or  character  of  those  scientists 
who  deny  it  is  neither  small  nor  insignificant. 
Science  has  not  yet  given  its  final  verdict  nor 
spoken  its  last  word  upon  this  subject,  and  it  is 
no  part  of  our  present  purpose  to  settle  this 
mooted  question.  Darwin,  Huxley,  Tyndall, 
Spencer,  Haeckel  and  scores  of  others  in  Europe 
and  America,  have  written  voluminously  upon 
this  subject,  and  a  large  number  of  learned 
works  have  been  written  in  opposition  by  men 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis.  73 

well  known  in  the  literary  world,  which  works 
are  accessible  to  every  one. 

And  right  here  the  fact  should  be  recognized 
that  all  evolutionists  are  not  Darwinians,  and 
that  Darwin  was  not  the  inventor  or  discoverer 
of  the  law  of  evolution.  The  contemplative 
philosophers  of  India  had,  centuries  before  he 
was  born,  a  theory  of  evolution  far  more  exten¬ 
sive  and  sublime  than  anything  ever  dreamed 
of  by  the  great  British  plodder.  Indeed,  there 
is  very  little  in  modern  science  or  philosophy 
that  had  not  been  thoroughly  canvassed  by 
esoteric  Buddhism  in  long-lost  centuries.  For 
more  than  two  thousand  years  the  theory  of 
evolution  has  had  its  promulgators,  and  even 
in  this  New  World  of  ours  it  had  its  advocates 
before  the  name  of  Darwin,  which  has  now  be¬ 
come  a  household  word,  reached  our  shores. 

In  the  main  principles  of  Darwin  evolutionists 
generally  agree,  but  from  his  details  and  from 
some  of  his  assumptions  and  conclusions  they 
widely  dissent.  The  system  of  evolution  as 
applied  to  the  origin  of  man  by  the  disciples 
of  Darwin  may  be  thus  summarized  :  All  over 
the  bottom  of  the  great  oceans  there  is  found 
a  slimy,  jelly-like  mass  of  albuminous  matter 
which  has  been  named  bathybius ,  and  which  is 
said  to  be  highly  protoplasmic.  We  go  to  the 
dictionary  and  find  that  protoplasm  means  “  the 


74  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

viscid,  nitrogenous  material  in  vegetable  cells, 
by  which  the  process  of  nutrition,  secretion  and 
growth  goes  forward in  other  words,  “  the 
vital  vegetable  substance.”  Out  of  this  semi-flu¬ 
idic  deposit  in  the  bottom  of  the  ocean  a  simple 
moner on  is  formed.  Although  this  woi  d  is  not 
found  in  the  lexicons,  we  know  by  analysis  and 
the  connection  in  which  it  is  used  that  it  means 
oneness,  the  opposite  of  complexity.  The  mon- 
eron  consists  of  one  single  substance,  and  by 
a  stretch  of  the  imagination  it  is  called  an  or¬ 
ganism  without  organs.  Haeckel,  in  his  History 
of  Creation ,  says  of  the  moneron  :  “  A  pinching- 
in  takes  place,  contracting  the  middle  of  the 
globule  on  all  sides,  and  finally  leads  to  the 
separation  of  the  two  halves.  Each  half  then 
becomes  rounded  off,  and  now  appeals  as  an 
independent  individual,  which  commences  anew 
the  simple  course  of  vital  phenomena  of  nutri¬ 
tion  and  propagation.”  Propagation  by  self¬ 
division  is  alleged  to  be  “  the  most  universal 
and  most  widely-spread  of  all  the  different 
modes  of  propagation.”  This  work  of  devel¬ 
opment  went  on  for  unknown  ages  until  the 
moneron  became  a  mollusk,  a  sea-snail  coveied 
with  a  shell ;  and  then,  after  the  lapse  of  ages, 
fishes  were  evolved  from  existing  organisms, 
and  for  other  ages  fishes  were  kings ;  and  then, 
in  the  course  of  time,  there  appeared  frog-like 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis.  75 

amphibians,  living  upon  the  land  as  well  as  in 
the  water,  serpent-like  creatures  that  began  to 
wriggle  through  swamps  and  even  to  climb 
trees ;  and  then,  after  the  lapse  of  other  ages, 
reptiles  were  developed  in  the  form  of  scaly 
monsters,  which  in  their  turn  became  mon- 
archs.  Then  marsupials,  a  sort  of  opossum, 
were  developed,  having  a  large  brain,  nourish¬ 
ing  their  young  in  the  womb  and  at  the  breast. 
Then  huge  mammals  followed  in  the  Tertiary 
age  of  the  world,  until,  after  the  lapse  of  millions 
of  years,  the  immediate  hairy  predecessor  of  man 
was  seen  swinging  by  his  long  arms  from  the 
boughs  of  trees,  the  old  ape  and  the  young  one 
soon  recognizing  the  natural  relation  of  father 
and  child.  In  fact,  the  brute  began  to  play 
humanity.  And  now,  after  the  lapse  of  other 
long  centuries,  the  master  of  them  all  appeared 
in  the  person  of  man.  True,  he  was  a  sorry- 
looking  specimen,  but  by  natural  selection,  the 
struggle  for  existence,  the  survival  of  the  fittest 
and  the  happy  influence  of  his  environment,  he 
emerged  from  his  brutal  degradation,  and  is 
now  able  to  trace  his  own  development  from 
the  semi-fluidic  speck  of  jelly  reposing  in  abso¬ 
lute  unconsciousness  in  the  deep  caverns  of  the 
ocean,  and  can  even  write  whole  libraries  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation, 
to  demonstrate  the  position  that  no  evidence 


76  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

can  be  found  in  the  universe  of  the  existence 
of  any  Being  greater  than  himself,  and,  in  fact, 
that  there  is  nothing  for  any  such  Being  to  do. 
Every  atom  of  matter  in  the  material  world  is 
alleged  to  contain  in  itself  “the  promise  and 
potency  of  all  forms  of  terrestrial  life,”  and  man 
himself  can  be  traced  back,  through  the  apes 
and  other  animals,  through  the  reptiles  and 
fishes  and  snails,  to  the  moneron  or  lump  of 
jelly  beneath  the  dark  unfathomed  caves  of 
old  Ocean. 

This  is  materialistic  evolution,  pure  and  sim¬ 
ple.  We  may  not  have  stated  it  with  scientific 
accuracy  as  to  order  and  detail,  but  for  “  sub¬ 
stance  of  doctrine”  the  summary  is  reliable. 
Man  is  of  brutal  descent  according  to  this 
school  of  philosophers,  and  at  best  is  only  a 
superior  and  more  highly-developed  animal, 
with  intellectual,  moral  and  social  qualities 
differing  in  degree,  but  not  in  kind,  from  sim¬ 
ilar  qualities  found  in  the  lower  animals. 

There  are  many  objections  to  this  theory, 
deemed  by  those  who  make  them  to  be  abso¬ 
lutely  unanswerable;  and,  as  before  intimated, 
there  are  many  learned  believers  in  the  general 
principle  of  evolution,  such  as  President  Mc- 
Cosh  of  Princeton  and  Professor  Gray  of  Har¬ 
vard,  who  utterly  dissent  from  the  theories  of 
Huxley  and  Haeckel,  and,  while  rejecting  the 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis.  77 

materialistic  theory,  propound  a  system  of  the- 
istic  evolution  which  they  hold  to  be  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  facts  established  by  Darwin 
and  his  coadjutors,  while  it  is  free,  from  its  athe¬ 
istic  tendencies. 

As  before  intimated,  we  shall  not  be  drawn 
into  this  controversy  any  farther  than  it  has  a 
bearing  upon  the  great  question  of  the  hereto¬ 
fore  of  our  humanity.  There  is  some  under¬ 
lying  truth  in  all  systems  of  philosophy,  with 
much  of  assumption  and  “  learned  conjecture.” 
It  may  be  possible  to  connect  man  with  the 
monkey  by  lineal  descent;  it  may  be  possible 
to  trace  him  back  to  the  moneron,  the  speck  of 
jelly  in  deep-sea  soundings.  But  this  does  not 
settle  the  question  of  the  origin  of  man.  The 
questions  arise,  Where  did  the  moneron  come 
from  ?  What  formed  the  original  speck  of 
mucus  out  of  which  the  moneron  was 
“pinched,”  as  Huxley  describes  it?  Where 
did  the  earth  and  the  sea  themselves  come 
from  ?  We  are  pointed  to  the  “  nebular  hy¬ 
pothesis  ”  of  world-building,  and,  though  this 
can  never  be  verified  and  will  not  admit  of 
demonstrative  proof,  we  may  in  this  argument 
admit  its  truth,  or  at  least  its  probability ;  but 
this  only  pushes  the  question  farther  back,  so 
that  we  must  look  for  man  in  the  fire-mists 
when  this  globe  was  a  mass  of  consuming  fire. 


78  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

And  we  cannot  even  stop  there,  but  must  go 
still  farther  back,  into  the  nebulous  vapor  before 
the  fires  of  creation  were  kindled  upon  the  mass 
of  matter  sloughed  off  from  the  sun  or  some 
other  body,  out  of  which  this  world  was 

formed. 

Walt  Whitman  has  presented  this  theory  in 
his  usual  pungent  style,  as  follows: 

“Afar  down  I  see  the  huge  first  Nothing; 

I  know  I  was  even  there.  .  , 

I  waited  unseen  and  always,  and  slept  through  the  lethar¬ 
gic  mist,  . 

And  took  my  time,  and  took  no  hurt  from  the  fetid 

carbon. 

Long  I  was  hugged  close— long  and  long. 

Immense  have  been  the  preparations  for  me, 

Faithful  and  friendly  the  arms  that  have  helped  me  , 
Cycles  ferried  my  cradle,  rowing  and  rowing  like  cheer¬ 
ful  boatmen. 

For  room  to  me  stars  kept  aside  in  their  own  rings ; 

They  sent  influences  to  look  after  what  was  to  hold 

me.  .  . ,  , 

Before  I  was  born  out  of  my  mother  generations  guide 

me.  .  , 

My  embryo  has  never  been  torpid,  nothing  could  over¬ 
lay  it. 

For  it  the  nebula  cohered  to  an  orb, 

The  long  slow  strata  were  piled  to  rest  it  on, 

Vast  vegetables  gave  it  sustenance, 

Monstrous  sauroids  transported  it  in  their  mouths  and 
deposited  it  with  care. 

All  forces  have  been  steadily  employed  to  complete  and 
delight  me : 

Now  I  stand  upon  this  spot  with  my  soul. 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis .  79 

We  know  this  is  called  poetry,  but  it  is  nev¬ 
ertheless  based  upon  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  materialistic  theory  of  evolution.  We 
do  not  pronounce  this  hypothesis  impossible. 
We  do  not  even  say  that  Darwin  and  Huxley 
and  Spencer  and  their  compeers  did  not  come 
out  of  the  primeval  nebula  through  the  prevail¬ 
ing  fire-mist  that  once  encircled  this  globe  in  a 
sheet  of  fiercest  flame,  so  that  the  globe  itself 
was  in  a  molten  condition ;  we  do  not  say  that 
they  did  not  once  repose  in  the  protoplasmic 
jelly,  until  a  lucky  lump,  “pinched  in”  and  sep¬ 
arating,  became  two  instead  of  one ;  we  do  not 
even  say  that  they  did  not  travel  through  all  the 
lower  forms  of  animal  life  until  they  developed 
into  anthropoid  apes,  and  at  last  into  brainy 
Englishmen.  But  we  must  affirm  that  the  case 
is  “  not  proven  ”  as  yet,  and  that  the  material¬ 
istic  theory  of  evolution  utterly  fails  to  answer 
the  question,  What  was  the  origin  of  man? 

Many  experiments  have  been  tried  to  establish 
the  theory  of  the  spo7itaneous  generation  of  life, 
but  without  satisfactory  results.  Life  is  found 
wherever  conditions  are  favorable.  Land  and 
ocean  and  air  are  peopled  with  living  creatures, 
and  Tyndall  and  Huxley  have  admitted  that 
they  can  find  no  life  without  pre-existent  life 
to  produce  it,  while  Bastian  and  Wyman  hold 
the  opposite.  But  if  experiments  should  yet 


8o  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

prove  successful,  and  life  should  be  produced 
without  the  influence  of  any  foreign  agency, 
how  can  we  with  strict  propriety  apply  the 
word  spontaneous  to  it  ?  How  do  we  know 
that  there  was  no  agency  employed  independ¬ 
ent  of  matter  itself,  though  invisible  and  im¬ 
palpable  ?  Can  there,  in  fact,  be  any  such  thing 
as  simple  spontaneity  ?  Is  such  a  thing  even 
thinkable?  But  if  matter  has  this  wonderful 
secret  power  of  generating  life  out  of  its  own 
hidden  womb — has  “the  promise  and  potency  of 
all  forms  of  life  ” — where  and  when  and  how  did 
every  atom  of  matter  become  possessed  of  this 
omnific  power?  But  we  are  told  that  matter  is 
not  dead,  but  wonderfully  alive.  The  ablest  of 
materialistic  writers  affirm,  as  we  may  hereafter 
have  occasion  to  prove,  that  there  is  no  dead 
matter  in  the  universe.  It  thence  follows  that 
if  matter  is  not  dead,  it  is  alive — has  life  in  itself, 
and  under  favorable  circumstances  manifests  life; 
and  thus  the  idea  of  the  spontaneous  generation 
of  life  becomes  a  contradiction,  an  absurdity. 

In  closing  this  part  of  the  discussion  we  take 
this  ground :  The  general  law  of  evolution 
is  as  real  as  the  law  of  gravitation.  Science 
has  not  yet  pronounced  its  final  verdict  as  to 
the  particular  application  of  this  law  to  the 
great  problem  of  human  life,  and  while  it  may 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis.  8r 

throw  some  light  upon  the  great  question  of  the 
origin  of  humanity,  it  utterly  fails  to  settle  that 
question.  The  scientific  hypothesis  of  Darwin  is 
one  thing,  and  the  philosophical  system  founded 
upon  it  by  Haeckel  and  Spencer  is  quite  another. 
We  may  accept  certain  facts  established  by  Dar¬ 
win  without  accepting  the  so-called  Darwinian 
phil  osophy  of  his  materialistic  disciples.  Facts 
are  facts,  but  the  interpretations  given  to  them 
are  not  always  final  and  infallible  in  matters 
of  religion  and  morals.  There  may  be  a  law  of 
Natural  Selection,  and  a  law  of  Conservation  of 
Energy  and  Correlation  of  Force,  but  besides 
these  there  may  be  other  things  not  dreamed 
of  in  the  materialistic  philosophy.  There  may 
be  something  before  evolution,  something  back 
of  and  behind  the  conservation  and  correlation 
of  energy. 

In  short,  to  many  most  thoughtful  and  logical 
minds  the  conclusion  seems  inevitable  that  we 
cannot  satisfactorily  account  for  the  origin  of 
man,  and  for  his  slow  but  sure  development 
from  his  confessedly  low  estate  where  we  first 
find  him  to  his  present  proud  position,  without 
postulating  the  existence  and  reign  of  an  infinite 
and  intelligent  Power  in  and  over  what  are  called 
the  “  laws  of  Nature.”  An  examination  of  this 
position  shall  be  the  scope  of  our  next  dis¬ 
sertation. 


6 


82  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

Mere  physical  science  accounts  for  nothing. 
It  must  involve  all  it  can  possibly  evolve.  A 
simple  mechanical  process,  without  forethought 
or  guidance,  without  intelligent  direction,  is  ab¬ 
horrent  to  reason.  Even  Auguste  Comte  wrote  : 

“  However  imperfect  the  natural  order,  its  origin 
would  agree  far  better  with  the  supposition  of  an 
Intelligent  Will  than  with  that  of  blind  mechan¬ 
ism.”  He  said  about  two  years  before  his  death, 

“  I  am  no  atheist.”  Prof.  Marsh  of  Yale  Col¬ 
lege  said  at  the  Herbert  Spencer  dinner  in  New 
York  :  “  As  to  the  origin  of  species,  once  thought 
to  be  the  key  to  the  position,  no  working  natu¬ 
ralist  of  to-day  who  sees  the  great  problems  of 
life  opening  one  after  another  before  him  will 
waste  time  in  discussing  a  question  already 
solved.”  .  .  .  “  All  existing  life  on  the  earth  is 
now  believed  to  be  connected  directly  with  that 
of  the  distant  past,  and  one  problem  of  to-day  is 
to  trace  out  the  lines  of  descent.” 

Evolution  is  an  acknowledged  fact  among  well- 
educated  men.  Embryology,  palaeontology,  and 
kindred  sciences  blend  beautifully  together,  but 
none  of  them  can  account  for  the  beginning  of 
things.  And  especially  should  it  be  kept  in 
mind  that  the  evolution  hypothesis  does  not 
necessarily  imply  that  man  is  a  lineal  descendant 
of  the  monkey.  They  may  have  had  a  common 
remote  origin,  but  they  diverged  or  separated 


The  Evolution  Hypothesis .  83 

millions  of  years  ago,  and  formed  distinct  types, 
similar  in  some  respects,  but  very  dissimilar  in 
others ;  one  line  of  divergence  developing  into 
a  rational  man,  and  the  other  into  an  irrational 
animal.  This  would  give  to  man  the  relation¬ 
ship  of  a  very  remote  cousin  to  the  ape,  rather 
than  that  of  a  lineal  descendant.  Scientific  evolu¬ 
tion  does  not  teach  that  types  are  derived  directly 
from  preceding  types  either  in  order  of  time  or 
organic  structure,  but  that  widely  divergent  types 
may  proceed  from  a  common  source.  There  are 
many  things  involved  in  impenetrable  mystery. 
Prof.  Tyndall  has  said  that,  so  far  from  having 
a  theory  of  the  universe,  he  has  not  even  a  the¬ 
ory  of  magnetism.  Herbert  Spencer  has  beau¬ 
tifully  said  :  “  But  amid  the  mysteries,  which 
become  the  more  mysterious  the  more  they  are 
thought  about,  there  will  remain  the  one  abso¬ 
lute  certainty,  that  man  is  ever  in  presence  of  an 
Infinite  and  Eternal  Energy ,  from  which  all  things 
proceed.”  There  is  no  Agnosticism  here.  The 
felt  and  the  seen  have  their  fulness  in  the  unseen 
and  intangible,  and  the  visible  impels  us  to  seek 
its  counterpart  and  complement  in  the  invisible. 
In  solving  the  problems  presented  to  us  by  the 
phenomena  of  Nature  the  scientist  as  well  as  the 
theologian  is  driven  to  cross  the  boundary-line 
which  separates  the  visible  from  the  unseen. 


IV. 


THE  ANSWER  OF  THEISM  TO  THE  QUESTION, 

WHENCE  IS  MAN? 

MAN  exists,  and  is  conscious  of  marvellous 
endowments,  intellectual,  moral  and  so¬ 
cial.  He  is  probably  the  only  being  upon  earth 
that  ever  raises  the  question  of  its  own  origin 
or  feels  any  concern  about  its  ultimate  destiny. 
The  so-called  Mosaic  account  of  the  beginning  of 
humanity,  elaborated  by  John  Milton  into  a  won¬ 
derful  poem,  and  also  made  the  basis  of  dogmatic 
theolosv,  is  found  to  have  been  borrowed,  in 
substance,  from  the  more  ancient  nations,  and  to 
be  part  of  a  grotesque  cosmogony  that  is  thor¬ 
oughly  unscientific  and  dependent  upon  a  dis¬ 
credited  chronology  and  upon  documentary  evi¬ 
dence  extremely  absurd  and  contradictory. 

But  when  science  is  pressed  for  a  rational  ac¬ 
count  of  the  beginning  of  things,  its  answers 
are  often  evasive  and  generally  unsatisfactory. 
It  professes  to  have  traced  this  globe  back  to 
the  nebulous  vapor  in  which  it  appears  to  have 
originated.  It  has  theoretically  traced  the  pro¬ 
cesses  of  world-building  through  the  fire-mists, 
84 


The  Theistic  Postulate.  85 

through  the  molten  and  cooling  periods,  until 
the  introduction  of  life  and  the  appearance  on 
the  surface  of  the  globe  of  an  almost  innumer¬ 
able  variety  of  organized  creatures.  Beyond  the 
formation  of  the  present  physical  universe  sci¬ 
ence  has  not  presumed  to  press  its  curious  in¬ 
vestigations.  When  asked  whether  the  matter 
that  now  composes  the  sun  and  the  earth  and 
other  planets  may  not  have  been  used  in  consti¬ 
tuting  older  suns  and  planets  which  have  been 
worn  out  and  dissipated,  it  has  no  answer,  but 
it  confidently  suggests  that  there  is  good  reason 
for  believing  that  the  present  physical  universe 
must  in  the  course  of  time  be  consumed  and  its 
constituent  elements  be  resolved  into  the  orig¬ 
inal  atoms  from  which  they  were  derived.  It 
has  demonstrated  the  fact  that  this  earth  has  not 
always  existed  in  its  present  form  as  a  habitable 
globe,  and  it  even  admits  that  the  sun  has  not 
had  an  eternal  existence,  because  it  is  a  consum¬ 
ing  fire,  and  must  have  become  extinct  long  ago 
from  its  own  wasting  flame  unless  often  replen¬ 
ished  with  new  supplies  of  fuel,  of  which  noth¬ 
ing  can  be  known. 

Farther  than  this  science  does  not  essay  to  go. 
When  asked  as  to  the  origin  of  the  materials  of 
which  the  universe  and  previous  possible  uni¬ 
verses  are  and  were  composed,  it  is  dumb  and 
opens  not  its  mouth,  except  to  lisp  the  assump- 


86  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


tion  that  matter  must  have  had  an  eternal  exist¬ 
ence.  We  try  to  grasp  the  idea  of  the  eternity 
of  matter,  and  find  it  impossible.  It  certainly 
cannot  be  demonstrated,  and  therefore  it  is  noth¬ 
ing  but  a  subterfuge  for  ignorance — a  guess.  The 
basic  assumption  of  science  is,  that  at  a  remote 
period  in  the  aeons  of  the  unmeasured  past  there 
existed  a  certain  given  quantity  of  matter,  which 
has  not  been  increased  or  diminished  up  to  the 
present  time,  though  its  forms  have  been  changed 
in  innumerable  instances.  It  also  assumes  that 
matter  has,  and  always  has  had,  an  inherent 
potency,  and  by  the  operation  of  certain  laws 
this  world  was  formed,  and  that  man  himself, 
with  all  his  endowments,  is  a  product  of  natural 
law.  In  point  of  fact,  the  materialistic  philos¬ 
ophy  does  not  attempt  to  settle  the  question  of 
the  origin  of  matter  in  its  strict  primary  mean¬ 
ing.  It  simply  assumes  that  certain  things  ex¬ 
isted  at  a  remotely  unknown  period,  and  it  essays 
to  trace  them  through  their  divers  transforma¬ 
tions  to  the  present  time.  It  does  not  even 
hazard  a  conjecture  as  to  the  real  origin  of  mat¬ 
ter,  but  hands  the  question  over  to  the  mystery 
of  nescience,  and  is  content  with  the  assumption 
of  the  eternal  existence  of  all  things. 

But  as  our  special  investigations  relate  to  the 
origin  of  man,  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  farther 
back  than  to  the  introduction  of  life  upon  this 


The  Theistic  Postulate .  87 

planet,  though  some  materialistic  scientists,  like 
Huxley,  scent  the  existence  of  man  in  the  fires 
of  the  sun  before  this  globe  was  formed  from 
the  nebulous  vapor.  The  theist  can  safely  admit 
the  nebular  hypothesis  in  its  general  principles  as 
probable,  especially  as  elaborated  by  the  authors 
of  The  Unseen  Universe ,  and  can  safely  accept 
the  general  principles  of  the  evolution  philos¬ 
ophy.  There  is  no  necessary  antagonism  be¬ 
tween  Materialism  and  Theism  regarding  the 
facts  and  processes  of  the  physical  world.  The 
difficulty  is,  that  Materialism  will  not  fairly  meet 
the  question  of  original  causation.  It  either  ig¬ 
nores  it,  pushes  it  farther  and  farther  back  into 
the  regions  of  the  unknown,  or  else  confounds 
cause  and  effect,  the  thing  made  with  the  Power 
that  made  it,  the  creation  with  the  Creator. 
When  theists  postulate  the  existence  of  an  in¬ 
finite  First  Cause,  which  by  common  consent  is 
denominated  God,  they  are  charged  with  assum¬ 
ing  the  fact  in  question,  and  demand  is  made  for 
proof  positive.  To  this  it  is  answered  that  the 
thing  to  be  proved  must  be  assumed  before  it 
can  be  proved.  It  will  not  admit  of  a-priori 
argument.  In  this  case,  as  in  many  others,  we 
can  only  determine  the  cause  from  the  effects. 
But  with  what  consistency  can  materialistic  sci¬ 
entists  denounce  the  principle  of  primary  as¬ 
sumption  when  their  whole  system  of  science 


88  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


and  philosophy  rests  upon  a  most  stupendous 
series  of  assumptions  ?  They  assume  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  matter  from  eternity,  its  essential  po¬ 
tency  and  cosmic  capacity,  the  existence  of 
self-originating  and  self-executing  laws,  the  con¬ 
servation  of  energy,  natural  selection  and  the 
whole  of  physical  phenomena.  In  fact,  it  re¬ 
quires  much  more  postulation  and  primary  cre¬ 
dulity  to  be  an  atheist  than  it  does  to  be  a  theist. 
And  right  here  is  the  point  of  divergence,  the 
real  question  at  issue.  Can  we  account  for  the 
existence  of  man  on  strictly  materialistic  prin¬ 
ciples,  or  must  we,  of  logical  necessity,  postu¬ 
late  the  existence  and  infinite  efficiency  of  a 
pre-existent  intelligent  Power? 

Let  us  here  examine  the  fundamental  claim  of 
Materialism  as  to  the  development  and  progress 
of  humanity  to  its  present  degree  of  perfection. 
Natural  selection  is  credited  as  the  efficient 
agency  in  this  wonderful  work ;  and  it  is  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  a  complicated,  well-connected 
and  continuous  process  that  has  been  in  operation 
through  unimaginable  ages,  and  is  still  in  opera¬ 
tion,  under  which  the  best  and  nearest  perfect 
of  everything  is  elected  to  survive,  and  propagate 
further  improvements  upon  all  that  preceded. 
This  is  the  grand  secret  of  Nature,  recently 
discovered  and  formulated  by  Charles  Darwin 
and  Alfred  R.  Wallace.  Natural  selection  sepa- 


The  Theistic  Postulate. 


89 


rated  the  different  species  of  living  creatures 
from  each  other,  gradually  improved  upon  their 
rough  rudimentary  organs,  and  fitted  them  to 
each  other  and  to  their  environments.  It  not 
only  thus  improved  the  species  by  preserving 
the  best  and  destroying  the  poorest,  but  it 
evolved  higher  and  widely-differing  types.  By 
this  principle  Nature  “  slowly  evolved  the  wing 
of  the  bird,  the  fin  of  the  fish  and  the  foot  of 
the  mammal;”  .  .  .  “from  an  optic  nerve  coated 
with  pigment  and  tingling  in  the  sunlight  she 
elaborated  and  perfected  the  living  miracle  of 
the  human  eye  and  adapted  its  lens  to  the  prop¬ 
erty  of  light ;  finally,  by  this  means  she  evolved 
the  civilized  man  from  the  savage,  the  savage 
from  the  brute,  and  the  brute,  through  still 
lower  lines,  from  the  mollusk  and  the  moneron.” 
The  work  of  creating  new  species  seems  to  have 
ended  millions  of  years  ago,  and  but  little  alter¬ 
ation  has  been  made  in  types.  The  method  of 
Nature  has  always  been  to  favor  the  strong,  the 
best,  and  so  secure  the  “survival  of  the  fittest” 
in  the  struggle  for  life. 

That  this  is  the  underlying  principle  upon 
which  the  methods  or  processes  of  Nature  have 
been  carried  on,  to  a  certain  extent,  may  be  freely 
admitted,  though  some  very  formidable  excep¬ 
tions  exist  to  its  universal  application.  But, 
conceding  the  principle,  it  does  not  follow  that 


90  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

natural  selection  can  account  for  the  origin  of 
man.  It  has  no  doubt  contributed  to  his  im¬ 
provement  and  elevation,  but  it  is  impossible  to 
conceive  how  it  could  have  developed  man  from 
a  clot  of  jelly  reposing  in  the  depths  of  the 
ocean.  There  can  be  no  objection  to  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  natural  selection  regarded  as  a  process , 
a  means  to  an  end,  but  when  we  convert  it  into 
a  cause  without  intelligence,  without  design, 
without  discriminating  purpose,  without  the  in¬ 
tention  of  producing  a  certain  result,  we  endow 
it  with  a  character  and  with  attributes  from 
which  reason  turns  in  open  revolt,  as  we  have 
before  our  eyes  and  in  our  very  consciousness 
results  for  the  existence  of  which  natural  selec¬ 
tion  is  not  an  adequate  explanation. 

Mr.  William  Graham,  M.  A.,  of  England,  has 

conclusivelv  shown  in  his  masterly  work  entitled 
* 

The  Creed  of  Science  that  the  great  objection  to 
the  doctrine  of  natural  selection,  as  applied  by 
materialists,  is  that — 

“  It  is  purely  a  chance  affair,  an  unconscious  artist  that 
worked  by  seemingly  disconnected  efforts,  without  any 
plan  or  preconception  of  the  result  to  be  achieved,  but 
who  nevertheless,  by  the  simplest  means,  reached  at 
length  the  most  surprising  and  splendid  results.”  .  .  . 
‘‘There  was  no  constant  purpose  in  view,  and  no  con¬ 
trolling  Power  governing  the  process  of  evolution.  Nature 
had  no  special  aims  in  view ;  anything,  in  fact,  might 
have  happened.”  .  .  .  ‘‘When  life  first  resulted,  it  was 


The  Thcistic  Postulate. 


91 


an  accident,  lucky  or  unlucky  as  we  choose  to  regard  it.” 

.  .  .  “Things  might  have  taken  a  wholly  different  course.” 
.  .  .  “In  particular,  man  himself  .  .  .  might  not  have  ap¬ 
peared  at  all.  And  after  his  appearance  it  was  only 
owing  to  the  chapter  of  accidents  unusually  favorable 
that  he  emerged  victor  from  the  general  battlefield  of 
existence.”  .  .  .  “  He  is  here,  too,  because  the  particular 
line  of  his  brute  progenitors,  itself  since  extinct,  survived 
sufficiently  long  to  launch  him  on  a  precarious  world,  not 
too  well  provided.  Had  the  latter  circumstance  been 
other,  or  had  the  special  branch  of  the  tree  of  life  from 
which  man  is  descended  withered  earlier,  as  other 
branches  have  done,  .  .  .  man  would  not  have  appeared. 
The  splendid  series  of  accidents  which  prepared  the  way 
for  him  and  made  his  advent  possible  could  not  have 
happened  twice ;  in  which  case  Nature  would  have  had 
another  master — the  dog,  the  horse,  the  elephant  or  some 
other  promising  species  now  kept  in  the  background,  and 
whose  ‘  genius  is  rebuked  ’  by  man’s  overshadowing  su¬ 
periority.” 

Even  after  the  first  appearance  of  man,  his 
continued  existence  must  have  been  uncertain 
and  highly  contingent.  The  chances  were 
largely  against  him.  His  immediate  half-hu¬ 
man  and  half-brutal  progenitors  did  perish  out 
of  existence,  so  that  there  is  an  acknowledged 
“  missing  link  ”  in  the  chain  of  descent.  That 
man  escaped  so  many  perils  was  due  to  his  good 
fortune  and  the  chances  of  battle. 

Although  we  have  admitted  the  existence  of 
the  law  of  natural  selection  as  a  process,  the  fact 
cannot  be  disguised  that  it  is  far  from  being  free 
from  many  objections,  both  as  a  scientific  hypoth- 


g  2  Man —  I  Vhen  ce  and  TV hit  her  ? 

esis  and  a  philosophical  theory,  which  even  its 
principal  originator  admitted,  while  Mr.  Wallace, 
who  shares  honors  with  Mr.  Darwin,  specifically 
admits  that  it  is  inadequate  to  account  for  the 
highly-developed  brain  of  early  savages,  so  far 
in  advance  of  their  actual  needs  and  uses,  and 
which,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  developed 
by  their  past  or  their  present  needs.  The  fact 
is,  that  all  impartial  and  profound  thinkers  can¬ 
not  but  feel  at  times  that  natural  selection,  either 
as  a  vera  causa  or  as  a  method  of  Nature,  is 
wholly  inadequate  to  account  for  the  stupen¬ 
dous  results  which  everywhere  exist  in  the 
world.  It  may  perhaps,  in  a  restiicted  sense, 
be  deemed  a  cause,  as  it  certainly  is  a  process, 
but  it  cannot  be  the  sole  cause  and  a  sufficient 
explanation  for  what  we  know  exists  in  and 
around  us.  There  must  have  been  other  agency 
at  work  than  the  play  of  contingency  in  natural 
selection — some  inner  Intelligence  and  Foice 
that  was  intent  upon  realizing  life  and  the  mar¬ 
vellous  faculties  of  the  human  mind  some  tran¬ 
scendent  Power  behind  natural  selection  in  which 
is  so  clearly  manifested,  in  many  things,  an  un¬ 
faltering  purpose  and  an  infinite  executive 

skill. 

This  invisible  and  incomprehensible  Power  a 
large  class  of  truly  scientific  men  choose  to  call 
God.  One  of  the  strongest  arguments  they  find 


The  Theistic  Postulate. 


93 


to  support  the  theistic  hypothesis  is  in  the  utter 
inadmissibility  of  the  materialistic  hypothesis, 
on  the  ground  of  the  palpable  inadequacy  of  its 
alleged  causes  to  produce  well-known  results. 
It  is  impossible  for  Materialism  to  explain 
a  man,  much  less  his  origin.  What  is 
known  among  scientists  as  the  method  of  ex¬ 
clusion  may  be  legitimately  applied  in  this  in¬ 
vestigation.  Its  principle  consists  in  deter¬ 
mining  what  a  thing  is  and  must  be  by  ascer¬ 
taining  what  it  is  not ;  and  until  some  adequate 
material  cause  is  discovered  it  takes  the  ground 
that  it  is  perfectly  rational  to  assume  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  an  infinite,  intelligent  Power  behind,  and 
over,  and  in  all  things. 

Even  Darwin  in  his  earlier  writings  incau¬ 
tiously  and  inconsistently,  as  some  think,  postu¬ 
lated  an  intelligent  Creator,  whom  he  placed  at 
the  head  of  the  process  of  organic  evolution, 
“who  had  nothing  to  do  at  the  beginning  save 
to  endow  one  or  more  primordial  forms  with  the 
lowest  degree  of  elementary  life,  leaving  the  rest 
to  natural  selection  and  the  ordeal-  of  battle.”  In 
a  recent  publication  there  appears  a  letter  of  Dar¬ 
win,  in  which  he  says  : 


“  It  seems  to  me  absurd  to  doubt  that  a  man  can  be  an 
ardent  theist  and  an  evolutionist.  .  .  .  What  my  own 
views  may  be  is  a  question  of  no  consequence  to  any  one 
but  myself.”  .  .  .  “My  judgment  often  fluctuates.  More- 


•  •  • 


94 


Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


over,  whether  a  man  deserves  to  be  called  atheist  depends 
upon  the  definition  of  the  term,  which  is  much  too  large 
aPsubiect  for  a  note.  In  my  most  extreme  fluctuations  I 
haveJnever  been  an  atheist,  in  the  sense  of  denying  the 
existence  of  a  God.  I  think  that  generally  (and  more 
and  more  as  1  grow  older),  but  not  always,  an  agnostic 
would  be  the  more  correct  description  of  my  state  of 

mind.” 

Count  d’Alviella,  in  his  History  of  Free  Re¬ 
ligion,  well  defines  the  real  position  of  Darwin 

thus : 

“The  alternative  he  presented  was  not  between  creation 
and  evolution,  but  between  an  organic  creation  by  means 
of  evolution  and  one  by  successive  interventions  of  an 
exterior  Power.  Thus,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  that 
his  doctrine,  far  from  banishing  the  idea  of  a  First  Cause, 
supplied  a  more  rational  and  lofty  conception  of  one  1 be¬ 
cause,  instead  of  a  capricious,  arbitrary  or  impotent  God, 
forced  to  correct  himself  often  in  order  to  perfect  h.s 
work,  it  permits  the  substitution  of  a  Supreme  Being  who 
has  endowed  his  creation  from  the  beginning  with  the 
forces  and  laws  necessary  to  ensure  a  regular  and  ad- 
vancing  march.” 


Both  Darwin  and  his  ablest  disciples  have 
more  than  once  conceded  that  the  development 
hypothesis  cannot  account  for  the  beginning  of 
things;  and  Herbert  Spencer,  the  ablest  ex¬ 
pounder  of  the  evolution  philosophy,  specif¬ 
ically  admits  that  there  is  a  “Power  behind 
humanity  and  all  other  things— a  Power  of  which 
humanity  is  but  a  small  and  fugitive  product  a 
Power  which  was,  in  the  course  of  ever-chang- 


The  Theistic  Postulate. 


95 


ing  manifestations,  before  humanity  was,  and  will 
continue  through  other  manifestations  when  hu¬ 
manity  shall  cease  to  be.”  “It would  be  easier,” 
he  says,  “  to  translate  so-called  matter  into  so- 
called  spirit  than  to  translate  so-called  spirit  into 
so-called  matter  (which  latter  is  indeed  wholly 
impossible) ;  yet  no  translation  can  carry  us  be¬ 
yond  our  symbols.”  He  elsewhere  says  :  “  This 
Power  is  no  more  representable  in  terms  of  hu¬ 
man  consciousness  than  human  consciousness  is 
representable  in  terms  of  a  plant’s  function.” 
Immanuel  Kant,  who  is  now  specially  popular 
with  the  natural-selection  champions,  makes 
similar  admissions,  as  do  many  other  eminent 
writers  of  the  same  philosophical  school.  Even 
Professor  Tyndall,  who  has  been  so  denounced 
for  suggesting  the  “  prayer-gauge,”  says  in  his 
Fragments  of  Science : 

“  Besides  the  phenomena  which  address  the  senses, 
there  are  laws,  principles  and  processes  which  do  not 
address  the  senses  at  all,  but  which  can  be  spiritually 
discerned.” 

In  his  lecture  on  Radiation  he  says  : 

‘‘We  have  been  producing  atoms,  molecules,  vibrations 
and  waves  which  eye  has  never  seen  nor  ear  heard,  and 
which  only  can  be  discerned  by  the  imagination.  This, 
in  fact,  is  the  faculty  w'hich  enables  us  to  transcend  the 
boundaries  of  sense  and  connect  the  phenomena  of  our 
visible  world  with  those  of  an  invisible.” 


96  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 

But  the  most  astounding  confession  of  all  has 
been  made  by  Professor  Haeckel,  the  renowned 
German  materialist,  in  these  words  : 

“The  more  developed  man  of  the  present  day  is 
capable  of,  and  justified  in,  conceiving  that  infinitely 
nobler  and  sublimer  idea  of  God  which  alone  is  compat¬ 
ible  with  the  monistic  conception  of  the  universe,  and 
which  recognizes  God’s  spirit  and  power  in  all  phenomena 
without  exception.  This  monistic  idea  of  God,  which  be¬ 
longs  to  the  future,  has  already  been  expressed  by  Gior¬ 
dano  Bruno  in  the  following  words :  ‘A  spirit  exists  in  all 
things,  and  no  body  is  so  small  but  contains  a  part  of  the 
divine  substance  within  itself,  by  which  it  is  animated. 

In  another  connection  Hseckel  has  expressed 
the  opinion  that  “  all  matter  is,  in  a  certain  sense, 
alive.” 

It  was  once  said  by  a  master  of  English  litera¬ 
ture  and  a  keen  observer  that  “language  is  a  de¬ 
vice  to  conceal  one’s  ideas;”  and  may  it  not  be 
possible  that,  after  all,  truly  scientific  and  candid 
men  have  substantially  the  same  theory  of  the 
universe,  and  really  mean  the  same  thing,  while 
they  use  very  different  words  to  express  their 
meaning?  The  old-fashioned  theist  adheies  to 
the  simple,  short  and  comprehensive  word  God, 
which  in  Anglo-Saxon  is  written  in  precisely  the 
same  characters  as  good.  This  name  has  been 
perverted  to  vile  uses,  and  has  been  too  long 
associated  with  the  many  superstitious  devices 
of  priestcraft;  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  many 


The  Theistic  Postulate .  97 

good  men  have  a  repugnance  to  both  the  words 
God  and  religion.  The  particular  character  at¬ 
tributed  to  God  has  been  more  a  matter  of  the 
fancy  than  of  reason.  The  tendency  is  to  ascribe 
to  God  the  qualities  that  we  ourselves  have  or 
admire  in  others. 

God  has  generally  been  conceived  to  be  a  man 
in  extensoy  a  huge  man ;  and  a  very  imperfect 
man  too.  The  tribal  Yahweh  of  the  ancient 
Jews  not  only  fails  to  command  our  reverence, 
but  in  some  things  excites  our  contempt.  The 
God  of  John  Calvin  is  a  demoniacal  monster 
who  fills  the  human  mind  with  dread  and  fear. 
Even  the  ordinary  conceptions  of  God  by  the 
modern  pietists,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  make 
prayers  and  praises  little  less  than  idolatrous,  if 
not  blasphemous.  But  these  are  perversions 
and  abuses.  We  can  conceive  of  God  as  the 
Over-all  Spirit  of  the  Universe ;  that  this  world 
is  not  dead  matter,  but  is  wonderfully  alive  be¬ 
cause  there  is  a  living  spirit  within  it ;  that  spirit 
is  the  extreme  of  visible  and  palpable  matter  as 
cognized  by  our  physical  organs  of  sense ;  that 
spirit  is  causation,  and  matter  in  its  palpable  form 
is  one  of  its  expressions  or  manifestations ;  that 
what  are  called  the  laws  of  Nature  are  but  modes 
of  the  divine  efficiency ;  that  in  accordance  with 
these  fixed  and  uniform  laws  the  infinite ,  divine 
Over-Soul  has  made  the  worlds  and  all  that  they 
7 


98  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

contain ;  and  that  this  work  has  been  going  on 
for  innumerable  aeons,  and  is  still  going  on, 
when  we  can  form  such  conceptions  of  God  we 
have  no  difficulty  as  to  the  origin  of  man.  God 
made  him — -just  how,  when  and  where  is  not 
certainly  known ;  but  we  do  know  that  the 
divine  method  of  making  worlds  and  animals 
and  men  is  by  a  uniform  system  of  evolution, 
causing  one  thing  to  come  out  of  another,  tak¬ 
ing  millions  and  billions  of  years  to  carry  on  his 
work  to  the  present  time,  and  that  probably  he 
will  take  millions  more  to  perfect  it. 

Rationalistic  theists  do  not  profess  to  know  all 
about  God.  If  pressed  for  an  answer  to  the 
question,  What  is  God  ?  none  better  can  be 
given  than  ilGod  is  spirit ;  not  a  spiiit,  but 
spirit .  When  asked,  What  is  spirit?  we  answer, 
We  do  not  know,  neither  do  we  know  what  elec¬ 
tricity  is,  nor  can  we  answer  one  of  a  thousand 
questions  that  come  up  regarding  the  subtle  and 
occult  principles  and  powers  of  matter.  With 
our  present  powers  and  attainments  we  admit 
Herbert  Spencer’s  expression,  the  Unknowable , 
as  applied  to  God — unknown  as  to  many  things 
relating  to  his  origin,  nature  and  mode  of  exist¬ 
ence,  yet  well  known  in  his  manifestations .  We 
accept  the  expostulations  of  the  ancient  Zophar 
with  the  old  man  of  the  land  of  Uz,  as  we  find 
them  in  the  Hebrew'  poem :  “  Canst  thou  by 


The  Theistic  Postulate. 


99 

searching  find  out  God?  Canst  thou  find  out 
the  Almighty  unto  perfection  ?  It  is  as  high  as 
heaven  :  what  canst  thou  do?  deeper  than  sheol. 
what  canst  thou  know  ?’’...  “  Lo,  these  are 
parts  of  his  ways,  but  how  little  a  portion  is 
heard  of  him !  but  the  thunder  of  his  powet- 
who  can  understand  ?”  We  see  no  difference 
between  the  Unknozvable  of  Spencer  and  the 
Unsearchable  of  Zophar.  The  Unknown  Powei 
is  the  “ Noumenon ,  the  absolute,  being  in  itself, 
the  inner  nature  of  force,  movement,  time, 
space,  and  even  conscience.” 

The  question  of  personality  as  applied  to  God 
is  often  raised,  and  in  this  case,  as  in  many 
others,  words  are  used  to  darken  knowledge. 
The  word  “personality”  originally  meant  an 
actor's  mask ,  words  sounding  through  a  dis¬ 
guise  in  a  theatre.  If  by  “personality”  is  meant 
reality ,  unity  or  oneness ,  we  say  God  is  personal. 
But  if  you  mean  by  personality  limitation ,  any¬ 
thing  like  a  man,  it  cannot  be  properly  applied 
to  the  Infinite.  Personality  is  one  of  the  divine 
characteristics,  but  one  word  cannot  describe 
any  one  of  his  attributes.  He  is  personal, 
in  a  certain  sense,  but  he  is  more  than  personal. 
We  cannot  ^fine  without  <rtf//fining,  and  when 
we  think  of  God  as  “  altogether  like  ourselves,” 
we  fall  into  confusion  and  doubt. 


ioo  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  think  of  God  as  out¬ 
side  of  and  distinct  from  the  universe.  If  there 
be  a  God  at  all,  lie  is  in  the  universe,  and  in 
every  part  of  it.  We  cannot  properly  localize 
him,  and  say  that  he  is  present  in  one  place  and 
not  in  another,  or  that  he  is  in  one  place  more 
than  another.  He  must  be  everywhere  and  in 
everything.  Anthropomorphic  (man-like)  views 
of  God  are  what  make  atheists  and  agnostics. 

Men  constantly  talk  of  the  laws  of  Nature, 
forgetting  that  law  itself  is  a  product  and  cannot 
be  a  cause.  The  law  of  gravitation  is  not  the 
cause  of  gravitation.  A  self-originating  and 
self-executing  law  is  unthinkable.  If  law  is 
the  creator  of  all  things,  law  is  God,  and  has 
intelligence  and  infinite  efficiency.  The  preva¬ 
lence  of  law  supposes  the  existence  of  a  law¬ 
maker  and  a  law-executor.  We  accept  the  law 
of  evolution,  but  cannot  conceive  of  evolution 
independent  of  involution  and  an  Evolver. 

Admitting  these  self-evident  principles,  we  cut 
the  Gordian  knot  that  must  always  puzzle  and 
confound  the  materialistic  scientist.  Whether  man 
came  from  a  monkey  or  is  a  distinct  type,  an  orig¬ 
inal  creation,  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  argument. 
Was  man  developed  from  a  monkey  ?  If  so,  God 
did  it,  and  that  is  his  method  of  making  a  man ; 
and  man  is  as  really  the  work  of  God  as  if  he 
had  formed  him  out  of  clay,  as  a  boy  makes  a 


The  Theistic  Postulate. 


IOI 


mud  sparrow,  and  then  gave  him  life.  It  must 
have  been  as  easy  for  infinite  Power  to  make  a 
man  out  of  a  monkey  as  to  make  him  out  of 
dust  or  a  rhizopod.  Did  man  have  a  distinct 
typical  origin  ?  He  who  could  make  an  anthro¬ 
poid  ape  could  make  an  ape-like  man,  entirely 
distinct  from  the  ape.  Nor  is  it  important  for 
us  to  determine  whether  there  was  a  one  first 
pair  or  several  pairs  from  whom  the  diversified 
races  of  humanity  have  descended.  The  Power 
that  brought  one  pair  into  existence  could  orig¬ 
inate  scores  or  hundreds  of  pairs. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  is  “  begging  the  ques¬ 
tion  ”  by  assuming  the  existence  of  an  infinite 
God.  But  we  deny  that  it  is  an  assumption  in 
its  last  analysis.  What  is  known  as  the  scien¬ 
tific  method  leads  logically  to  the  conclusion  that 
there  must  be  something  that  theists  generally 
name  God.  You  may  call  it  “protoplasm,” 
“  molecular  force,”  the  “  potentiality  of  matter,” 
or  even  matter  itself;  and  when  you  tell  us  what 
these  words  mean  we  will  tell  you  what  we  mean 
by  “God.”  Possibly  we  all  mean  the  same  thing. 
We  know  of  the  existence  of  God,  as  we  know 
other  things,  by  palpable  manifestations. 

Astronomers  assumed  the  existence  of  Neptune 
from  certain  phenomena  long  before  its  existence 
could  be  demonstrated ;  and  if  the  discovery  had 
never  been  made,  the  perturbations  so  long  ob- 


102  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

served  would  have  nevertheless  justified  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  there  must  be  some  stupendous 
cause  for  such  unmistakable  and  marvellous 
perturbations. 

But  we  are  pressed  with  the  common  queries, 
Where  did  God  originate?  Who  made  him? 
We  cannot  answer  these  questions,  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  he  does  not  exist.  There  are 
many  things  we  cannot  account  for,  the  reality 
of  which  we  never  question.  If  we  could  answer 
all  possible  questions  about  God,  he  would  not 
be  God.  If  La  Place  had  found  God  in  scan- 
nine  the  heavens  with  his  telescope,  or  if  Law- 
rence  had  found  him  with  his  scalpel,  he  would 
not  have  been  the  infinite  Intelligence  and  Power. 
Such  a  God  as  cultured  reason  discovers  in  the 
scientific  method  cannot  be  seen  with  either  tele¬ 
scope  or  microscope.  The  finite  cannot  com¬ 
prehend  the  Infinite;  the  lesser  cannot  contain 
the  greater.  The  child  cannot  tell  where  his 
father  came  from,  but  he  nevertheless  had  a 
father.  When  men  talk  of  the  eternity  of  mat¬ 
ter  we  do  not  even  profess  to  understand  them. 
The  most  advanced  scientists  do  not  attempt  to 
explain  one  of  a  thousand  mysteries  in  which 
all  of  the  phenomena  of  the  material  world  are 
enshrouded.  Why  should  it  be  expected  that 
theists  should  explain  where  and  how  and  when 


The  Theistic  Postulate.  103 

God  came  into  existence,  or  how  he  could  have 
had  an  eternal  existence  or  be  self-existent?  We 
affirm  no  more  of  God  than  materialists  imply 
of  matter,  and  we  endow  him  with  no  attributes 
that  they  do  not  virtually  ascribe  to  matter.  So 
far  as  assumption  and  incomprehensibility  are 
concerned,  both  stand  on  the  same  ground.  In 
point  of  fact,  there  is  but  little,  if  any,  real  dif¬ 
ference  between  a  rational  theist  and  a  scientific 
materialist.  They  indeed  call  things  by  different 
names,  but  mean  about  the  same  thing.  What 
theists  prefer  to  call  “  the  works  of  God,”  mate¬ 
rialists  call  “Nature,”  “cosmic  laws,”  “spontane¬ 
ous  generation,”  “the  potency  of  matter,”  “con¬ 
servation  of  energy,”  “  correlation  of  force  ”  and 
“  natural  selection.” 

The  fundamental  error  of  modern  scientists  is 
that  they  confine  their  investigations  to  the  phys¬ 
ical  and  palpable,  while  we  have  demonstrable 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  spiritual  and 
invisible.  We  know  nothing  of  matter  but  from 
its  properties  and  manifestations,  and  we  have 
the  same  kind  of  evidence  in  regard  to  spirit, 
and  know  that  it  is  superior  to  gross  matter, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  tested  by  the  same 
crucibles.  In  the  very  nature  of  things  a  great 
cause  must  ever  be  imponderable  and  invisible. 
It  cannot  be  weighed  and  measured,  but  must 
ever  remain  intangible  and  incomprehensible. 


104  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 

What  is  that  hidden  power  that  makes  Bunker 
Hill  Monument  perceptibly  higher  at  noon  than 
at  night,  that  causes  a  steel  rail  to  become  longer 
or  shorter  at  different  hours  of  the  day,  and  that 
causes  the  hidden  spark  to  dart  from  the  flint 
when  smitten  by  the  hardened  steel  ? 

When  we  fully  realize  that  this  is  not  a  soul¬ 
less,  corpse-like  universe,  that  God  is  not  outside 
of  it,  but  that  he  is  in  it— in  all  things  and  the 
soul  of  all  things — we  shall  have  no  difficulty 
about  “protoplasm,”  “molecules,”  the  “cor¬ 
relation  of  force”  and  other  mystical  and  in¬ 
comprehensible  phrases.  When  science  shall 
cease  its  futile  attempts  to  get  along  without 
God,  and  acknowledges  the  reality  of  spirit  and 
its  superiority  to  mere  matter,  the  world  will  be 
redeemed  from  an  atheistic  orphanage,  and  our 
race  will  see  the  Fatherhood  of  God  in  the 
brotherhood  of  man. 

Science  may  go  on  with  its  ceaseless  plod- 
dings  until  it  can  show  just  how  man  was 
evolved  from  matter;  but  let  it  not  forget  to  put 
in  the  qualifying  adjective,  physical  man,  for  it 
certainly  goes  outside  of  its  legitimate  work 
when  it  undertakes  to  deny  the  existence  of 
the  unseen  Ego.  “  There  is  a  spirit  in  man, 
and  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  giveth  him 
understanding.” 

The  spirit  in  physical  man,  in  its  relation 


The  Theistic  Postulate.  105 

to  the  Supreme  Spirit,  is  as  the  drop  of  water 
to  the  ocean  or  the  single  glimmering  ray  to 
the  full-orbed,  refulgent  sun.  Men  may  talk 
of  “force  correlation,”  and  trace  its  progress  and 
products,  but  they  must  remain  dumb  as  to  the 
beginning  or  origin  of  force  unless  they  accept 
the  doctrine  of  an  intelligent  First  Force.  There 
is  no  way  of  accounting  for  the  existence  of 
spirit,  of  life,  of  intelligence,  but  by  premising 
the  prior  existence  of  spirit,  life  and  intelligence. 
Like  only  causes  like.  An  egg  does  not  come 
from  a  stone,  and  the  ascidian  did  not  come  from 
a  lifeless  rock. 

The  logical  conclusion  from  the  facts  and 
principles  herein  suggested  is  that  there  must 
be  an  intelligent  First  Cause  of  all  things — an 
all-pervading,  fecundating,  animating  Spirit  of 
the  universe ;  and  we  prefer  to  call  this  God. 
Science  has  taught  us  the  processes  of  his  work, 
and  denominates  them  the  “  laws  of  Nature.” 
In  point  of  fact,  as  little  is  known  of  the  origin 
and  essence  of  matter  as  of  spirit,  and  there  is 
as  good  ground  for  agnosticism  in  the  former  as 
in  the  latter.  There  is  therefore  no  necessary 
conflict  between  true  science  and  a  rational 
theism. 

It  is  a  rational  proposition  that  something 
must  have  been  before  what  is  called  creation. 
There  must  have  been  an  intelligent  potency ,  and 


io6  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


that  Power  theists  prefer  to  call  God.  The  ma¬ 
terialistic  philosophy  in  its  basic  principles  is 
contained  in  two  propositions:  (i)  Matter  has  in 
itself  an  intrinsic  force  which  produces  all  the 
forms  of  Nature.  (2)  Life,  intellect,  conscious¬ 
ness,  will,  and  all  there  is  of  man,  came  from 
atomic  and  molecular  combinations  in  the  ma¬ 
terials  of  which  man  is  composed.  According 
to  this  theory,  man  is  a  conglomeration,  mainly 
of  oxygen,  hydrogen  and  carbon,  with  a  sprink¬ 
ling  of  nitrogen  and  still  more  minute  pai tides 
of  phosphorus,  calcium,  sulphur,  fluorine,  chlo¬ 
rine,  sodium,  iron,  potassium,  magnesium  and 
silicon.  The  existence  of  these  elements  has 
been  demonstrated  by  the  chemist  and  patholo¬ 
gist,  but  with  all  their  knowledge  they  have 
failed  to  account  for  the  fact  that  there  is  asso¬ 
ciated  with  this  material  conglomerate  a  person¬ 
ality,  an  individuality ,  that  reasons,  remembers, 
imagines,  hopes,  fears,  loves,  hates — that  is  am¬ 
bitious  to  grasp  the  infinite  and  aspires  to  im¬ 
mortality. 

Matter  is  only  known  to  us  through  the  me¬ 
dium  of  our  external  senses,  but  thought  is  known 
through  our  inward  consciousness.  And  by  this 
we  learn  that  mind  is  greater  than  matter,  and 
very  different  from  it  as  we  know  it  in  its  gross 
forms  through  our  physical  senses.  Now,  the 
question  arises,  Can  this  intelligence  be  the  re- 


The  Theistic  Postulate .  107 

suit  of  the  chemical  and  molecular  action  of 
atoms  which  are  in  themselves  without  intelli¬ 
gence  ?  Can  we  conceive  of  intelligence  with¬ 
out  pre-existing  intelligence?  Can  we  conceive 
of  a  time  when  intelligence  first  began  to  be  ? 
Certainly  not,  if  intelligence  could  only  come 
from  intelligence.  Now,  whatever  begins  must 
have  had  a  cause,  and  therefore  there  never 
could  have  been  a  time  when  intelligence  did 
not  exist,  unless  we  credit  the  absurdity  that 
there  was  intelligence  before  there  was  intelli¬ 
gence.  Materialists  say  matter  had  an  eternal 
existence,  and  matter  has  intelligence;  therefore 
intelligence  always  existed.  The  logical  error 
lies  in  the  falsity  of  the  proposition  that  intelli¬ 
gence  is  an  inherent  property  of  matter  or  the 
result  of  certain  combinations  of  matter;  which 
is  manifestly  absurd.  To  make  mind  a  quality 
of  matter  would  be  to  make  the  original  intelli  ¬ 
gence  a  quality  of  matter ;  that  is,  to  make  God 
a  quality  of  matter,  and  to  make  matter  God. 
And  this  is  just  what  Materialism  in  its  last 
analysis  does.  It  ascribes  to  matter  all  that 
theists  ascribe  to  God.  It  gives  matter  an 
eternal  self-existence — endows  it  with  an  in¬ 
herent  infinite  intelligence  and  an  omnipotent 
potency.  It  spells  “  God  ”  with  six  letters  in¬ 
stead  of  three.  It  makes  a  God  of  matter,  and 
then  denies  his  existence. 


io8  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 

We  now  submit  that  it  is  more  rational  to  pos¬ 
tulate  the  existence  of  an  eternal  Supreme  Intel¬ 
ligence  and  Power,  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of  all 
things  visible  and  invisible,  who  is  the  Author 
and^Executor  of  the  laws  by  which  both  mind 
and  matter  are  governed.  This  Supreme  Being 
is  alone  the  Self-existent  One,  and  what  are 
called  the  properties  and  modes  of  ineit  matter 
are  but  the  proofs  and  manifestations  of  his  etei- 
nal  power  and  Godhead.  There  cannot  be  a 
poem  without  a  poet,  nor  a  picture  without  an 
artist.  There  cannot  be  a  watch  or  other  com¬ 
plex  machine  without  an  inventor  and  artisan. 
This  universe  is  the  sublimest  of  all  poems,  and 
Cicero  well  said  that  it  would  be  easier  to  con¬ 
ceive  that  Homers  Iliad  came  from  the  chance 
shaking  of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet  together 
than  that  the  atoms  should  have  produced  the 
cosmos  without  a  marshalling  agency.  The 
visible  and  palpable  compel  us  to  acknowledge 
their  counterpart  in  the  invisible  and  intangible, 
and  we  cannot  rationally  account  foi  the  oiigin 
of  man  without  postulating  the  existence  of  an 
Intelligence  and  Power  greater  than  humanity. 

We  submit  that  a  rationalistic  Theism  is  more 
scientific,  and  better  commends  itself  to  the  im¬ 
partial  and  unprejudiced  thinker,  than  the  athe¬ 
istic  assumption  of  a  self-originating,  ceaseless 
procession  of  cosmic  potentialities,  floating  from 


The  Theistic  Postulate.  109 

nobody  knows  where  and  to  nobody  knows 
whither.  Some  day  more  will  be  known  upon 
this  mysterious  subject,  but  even  now  enough 
is  known  to  show  that  there  is  no  inconsistency 
between  a  rational  faith  in  God  and  the  most 
marvellous  discoveries  of  modern  science.  The 
fundamental  idea  of  the  old  Hebrew  poem,  bor¬ 
rowed  from  older  and  more  civilized  peoples, 
that  God  created  man,  is  true,  while  it  is  the 
legitimate  province  of  science  to  explain  the 
divine-natural  laws  by  which  the  work  has  been 
carried  on  to  its  comparative  completeness.  All 
Nature  is  vocal  with  the  breath  of  the  Eternal. 

“O  Earth  !  thou  hast  not  any  wind  that  blows 
Which  is  not  music  ;  every  weed  of  thine, 

Pressed  rightly,  flows  in  aromatic  wine  ; 

And  every  humble  hedgerow  flower  that  grows, 

And  every  little  brown  bird  that  doth  sing, 

Hath  something  greater  than  itself,  and  bears 
A  living  word  to  every  living  thing, 

Albeit  it  holds  the  message  unawares. 

All  shapes  and  sounds  have  something  which  is  not 
Of  them  ;  a  Spirit  broods  amid  the  grass  ; 

Vague  outlines  of  the  Everlasting  Thought 
Lie  in  the  melting  shadows  as  they  pass ; 

The  touch  of  an  Eternal  Presence  thrills 
The  fringes  of  the  sunsets  and  the  hills.” 

Let  us  now  try  to  realize  just  where  we 
stand.  There  is  very  little  of  real  science  in 
the  world,  taking  the  word  in  its  primary 


I  IO 


Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 

meaning  of  knowledge.  What  we  do  not  know 
is  stupendous.  Every  system  of  philosophy  is 
confronted  with  an  overshadowing  mystery  as 
to  the  actual  beginning  of  things.  Atheists  and 
theists,  materialists  and  agnostics,  are  alike  dumb 
and  silent.  All  theories  of  the  universe  start 
with  assumptions,  but  Theism  has  but  one  sin¬ 
gle  assumption,  and  argues  that  all  the  facts  of 
Nature  go  to  show  the  reasonableness  of  that 
assumption.  It  claims  to  show  that  a  denial  of 
the  existence  of  a  First  Cause  involves  infinite  and 
innumerable  mysteries  and  absurdities,  and  that 
all  attempts  to  account  for  the  origin  and  pro¬ 
gressive  development  of  man  upon  any  other  than 
the  theistic  hypothesis  are  manifest  failuies,  even 
in  the  light  of  the  materialistic  philosophy.  Is  it 
not  more  rational  to  admit  one  incomprehensible 
mystery  that  explains  all  other  mysteries  than  to 
for  ever  grapple  with  the  millions  of  mysteries 
that  confront  us  on  every  side  ?  Is  it  not  per¬ 
fectly  rational  to  credit  the  assumption  of  Theism 
as  to  the  existence  of  an  Infinite  Creator,  or,  if 
you  prefer,  an  Infinite  Evolver,  when  all  the  facts 
of  the  universe  harmonize  with  this  hypothesis, 
and  all  other  hypotheses  are  absolutely  at  open 
variance  ?  Theism  assumes,  a  priori ,  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  God,  and  proves  it  a  posteriori.  And 
never  does  its  arguments  seem  so  absolutely 
conclusive  and  invulnerable  as  when  contrasted 


The  Theistic  Postulate .  1 1 1 

with  the  attempts  made  by  materialists  to  ac¬ 
count  for  the  facts  of  the  universe  without 
admitting  the  necessity  for  the  existence  of 
God.  This  seems  to  have  been  realized  by  the 
evolution  philosophers  themselves,  so  that  while 
Darwin  admitted  that  his  mind  fluctuated  and 
that  he  was  generally  agnostic,  he  never  had 
been  an  atheist  in  the  sense  of  denying  the 
existence  of  God.  We  have  already  given  quo¬ 
tations  from  Herbert  Spencer  and  Professors 
Tyndal,  Huxley  and  Haeckel  virtually  admitting 
what  rational  theists  contend  for — viz.  a  living 
something  in  matter  which  makes  it  just  what  it 
is,  and  which  these  scientists  themselves  some¬ 
times  call  life  and  spirit  and  other  names  entirely 
acceptable  to  liberal  theists.  We  are  reproached 
for  the  inconsistency  of  believing  in  a  Power  we 
cannot  comprehend,  and  endowing  him  with 
attributes  of  which  we  can  form  no  just  concep¬ 
tions.  Atheists  do  not  seem  to  realize  that  they 
are  guilty  of  a  greater  inconsistency.  They  tell 
us  that  we  believe  in  a  Being  of  whom  we  can 
form  no  conception,  but  they  themselves  must 
form  some  conception  of  such  a  Being,  else  how 
could  they  deny  his  existence  ?  Dr.  Harris  of 
Yale  College,  in  The  Philosophical  Basis  of 
Theism,  puts  this  point  very  acutely.  He  says  : 

“This  denial  involves  the  assumption  that  man  has 
capacity  to  know  God,  has  also  the  true  idea  of  him, 


I  I  2 


Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

knows  all  the  evidence  of  his  existence  which  the  uni¬ 
verse  contains  now  or  ever  has  contained  or  ever  will 
contain,  and  knows  also  that  the  evidence  is  inadequate 
and  that  God  does  not  exist.  This  form  of  Atheism 
assumes  as  its  basis  the  omniscience  of  the  atheist,  for 
if  he  does  not  know  everything,  that  which  he  does  not 
know  may  be  God  or  the  evidence  of  God’s  existence. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  admitting  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  a  Supreme  Power  if  we  do  not  attempt 
to  comprehend  and  describe  it.  Matthew  Ar¬ 
nold  says :  “  We  too  would  say  ‘  God  ’  if  the 
moment  we  said  ‘  God  ’  you  would  not  pretend 
that  you  know  all  about  him.”  His  definition 
of  God  is  indeed  vague,  but  vastly  suggestive : 

A-ii  enduring  Power  not  ourselves  that  makes  for 
righteousness."  Mr.  Arnold  further  defines  his 
meaning  thus : 

“  For  the  total  man,  therefore,  the  truer  conception  of 
God  is  as  ‘  the  Eternal  Power,  not  ourselves,  by  which 
all  things  fulfil  the  law  of  their  being;’  by  which,  there¬ 
fore,  we  fulfil  the  law  of  our  being  so  far  as  our  being  is 
sesthetic  and  intellective,  as  well  as  so  far  as  it  is  moral. 
And  it  is  evident,  as  we  have  before  now  remarked,  that 
in  this  wider  sense  God  is  displeased  and  disserved  by 
many  things  which  cannot  be  said,  except  by  putting  a 
strain  upon  words,  to  displease  and  disserve  him  as  the 
God  of  righteousness.” 

This  suggests  the  moral  element  in  the  un¬ 
known  Power  which  finds  such  a  ready  le- 
sponse  in  the  human  mind.  There  is  not  only 
a  spiritual  sense  in  man  which  recognizes  the 


The  Theistic  Postulate.  1 1 3 

supersensuous,  but  there  is  an  indwelling  witness 
to  the  eternal  principle  of  rightfulness.  The 
sentiment  of  oiighlness  is  inherent  and  ineradi¬ 
cable.  Every  man  who  is  not  a  moral  idiot  has 
a  feeling  that  certain  things  ought  and  ought  not 
to  be,  that  there  is  an  essential  right  and  wrong; 
and  when  the  noble  mother  of  Theodore  Parker 
told  him  that  it  was  the  voice  of  God  that  bade 
him  not  to  crush  the  tortoise  with  his  upraised 
club,  she  was  not  mistaken,  and  it  was  his  rev¬ 
erent  recognition  of  that  divine  Voice  that  made 
him  the  unconquerable  foe  of  all  wrong.  Hu¬ 
man  intuition  sees  and  feels  this  mysterious 
Power  that  answers  to  our  Ego,  and  from  which 
it  proceeds;  and  this  inward  conviction  cannot  be 
eradicated  from  the  average  mind  by  the  preten¬ 
sions  of  science  falsely  so  called.  The  patient 
watcher  in  the  dark  room  at  the  terminus  of  the 
ocean  cable  sees  in  his  suspended  mirror  the 
reflection  of  an  electric  spark,  and  he  at  once 
recognizes  it  as  a  message  from  the  operator 
three  thousand  miles  away.  So  God  is  seen  by 
the  aspiring  and  contemplative  in  the  concave 
mirror  of  man’s  own  spirit,  and,  though  it  is  a 
mere  reflection,  a  spark,  a  flash,  it  clearly  proves 
the  existence  of  the  Central  Magnet.  It  is  this 
recognition  of  the  moral  element  that  forms  the 
basis  of  moral  government  and  of  that  worship¬ 
fulness  which  has  manifested  itself  among  all 
8 


1 14  Man — Whence  and  Whit  he)'? 

nations,  barbarian  and  civilized.  It  was  this 
innate  feeling  of  reverence  that  indited  the  sub¬ 
lime  words  of  the  poet-philosopher  Goethe : 

“Him  who  dare  name 
And  yet  proclaim, 

‘Yes,  I  believe? 

Who  that  can  feel 
His  heart  can  steel 
To  say,  ‘I  disbelieve’?” 

Herbert  Spencer  has  well  said  that  this  Powei 
“  is  no  more  representable  in  terms  of  human 
consciousness  than  human  consciousness  is  rep¬ 
resentable  in  terms  of  a  plant’s  function.”  We 
cannot  describe  the  Infinite  in  language  of  the 
finite.  Man  can  much  less  comprehend  God 
than  a  plant  can  comprehend  man.  But  human 
consciousness  feels  that  God  is,  and  human 
reason  demonstrates  that  this  is  not  a  universe 
without  a  Soul,  and  from  phenomenon  proves 
the  existence  of  Numenon.  Theism  thus  starts 
with  an  assumption  suggested  by  intuition,  and 
proves  the  soundness  of  its  basis  by  showing 
that  the  facts  of  the  universe  justify  the  as¬ 
sumption. 

But  “  no  translation  of  the  words  ‘  God  ’  and 
‘Spirit’  can  carry  us  beyond  our  symbols”  (as 
Spencer  has  well  said) ;  so  that  our  conceptions 
of  God  must  necessarily  be  symbolic,  and  noth¬ 
ing  more;  and  from  the  essential  nature  of 


The  Theistic  Postulate.  1 1 5 

things  there  is  nothing  to  which  we  can  com¬ 
pare  him,  and  therefore  we  should  not  even 
make  the  attempt.  While  we  freely  use  the 
word  “  atheist  ”  as  describing  those  who  deny 
the  existence  of  God,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
there  are  many,  if  indeed  any,  such  persons, 
especially  among  learned  and  truly  scientific 
men,  though  they  call  themselves  by  the  name. 
A  close  analysis  of  what  they  do  believe  would 
probably  reveal  the  fact  that  they  are  only 
atheistic  as  regards  the  Yahweh  of  the  Jews — • 
whose  general  character,  as  portrayed  by  his 
own  worshippers  and  prophets,  is  so  exceed¬ 
ingly  unlovely — and  the  God  of  dogmatic  the- 
ology,  called  Christian,  who  in  many  respects  is 
no  better.  It  must  have  been  disbelief  of  this 
kind  that  Henry  Thoreau  had  in  mind  when  he 
said  it  would  seem  as  if  Atheism  must  be  com¬ 
paratively  popular  with  God. 

Plutarch,  though  a  pagan,  had  the  same  idea 
when  he  said  that  it  would  be  more  pleasing  to 
God  to  deny  his  existence  than  to  form  mean 
conceptions  of  his  attributes.  We  know  that 
many  who  are  called  atheists  are  far  in  advance 
of  multitudes  of  theists  in  everything  that  con¬ 
stitutes  moral  excellence  and  true  manhood. 
Theodore  Parker  once  attended  the  funeral  of 
an  avowed  atheist,  and  in  his  prayer  thus  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  deceased :  “  O  God,  he  did  not 


1 1 6  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


believe  in  thy  existence,  but  he  kept  thy  law.” 
It  is  safe  to  assume  that  average  Atheism  is 
disbelief  in  the  God  of  the  dominant  theology, 
and  not  in  the  Ultimate  Pozver  that  makes  for 
righteousness.  Vulgar,  anthropomorphic  con¬ 
ceptions  of  God,  which  endow  him  with  certain 
speculative  attributes,  are  condemned  by  reason 
and  science ;  but  nevertheless  phenomena  have 
something  behind  them,  and  energy  has  something 
beneath  it,  and  all  things  have  something  in  them 
which  is  the  source  of  all  phenomena  and  energy; 
and  this  enduring,  all-pervading  Power  is  our 
sure  guarantee  of  the  order  of  the  universe. 
And  this  Power  theists  persist  in  calling  God. 
Theologians  may  call  this  Pantheism,  but  it  is 
only  seemingly  so.  There  is  a  vast  difference 
between  saying  that  everything  is  God,  and  that 
God  is  in  everything.  The  old  watchmaker- 
mechanician  idea,  a  God  separate  and  outside 
of  the  universe,  will  yet  become  obsolete,  and 
science  and  reason  and  the  law  of  progressive 
development  will  compel  men  to  reshape  their 
conceptions  of  God  as  identical  with  the  Cos¬ 
mos,  plus  the  eternal  Mystery,  yet  not  forgetting 
that  there  is  a  moral  aspect  to  this  subject,  and 
that  there  is  a  moral  government  of  the  universe 
as  real  as  what  is  called  natural  government. 
The  enduring  Power  is  always  on  the  side  of 
right.  Of  this  we  shall  speak  hereafter. 


The  Theistic  Postulate. 


ii  7 


“  I  cannot  picture  God  !  I  cannot  fathom 
The  mystery,  the  nature  of  his  power, 

Whose  laws  sublime,  the  universe  controlling, 

Rule  suns  and  worlds  and  systems  hour  by  hour. 

“  But  I  can  see  his  work  in  every  flower, 

In  every  daisy,  every  ^  iolet  blue, 

In  every  form  of  life,  from  clod  upspringing 
To  laws  divine,  obedient  and  true. 

“Still  more  in  human  hearts  !  We  love  the  beauty 
Our  eyes  drink  in  by  mountain  and  by  sea; 

We  feel  his  power  in  evening  sunsets  golden  ; 

We  love  the  flowers  that  bloom  upon  the  lea ; 

“But  more,  still  more,  in  noble  deeds  and  loving 
Of  human  souls,  whose  virtues  radiant  shine, 

We  see  the  Power  within,  the  Power  mysterious, 

The  Power  in  all,  through  all — the  Power  divine.” 


V. 

IS  DEATH  THE  END  OF  MAN? 

IT  is  related  by  Montaigne  of  Pyrrho,  the  old 
sceptical  philosopher,  who  followed  his  pre¬ 
ceptor  in  the  expeditions  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
nd  afterward  became  a  priest,  that  he  was  once 
upon  a  ship  when  a  terrific  storm  arose,  and  when 
the  affrighted  passengers  were  frantic  with  appre¬ 
hension  he  pointed  them  to  a  hog  that  happened 
to  be  on  deck  as  an  example  of  serenity  and  in¬ 
difference  worthy  of  imitation  in  the  hour  of 
peril. 

There  may  be  creatures  in  the  form  of  man 
even  in  our  day  whose  instincts  are  so  swinish 
as  to  cause  no  apprehensions  of  the  future  and 
no  aspirations  for  a  higher  life  after  death ;  but 
their  number  must  be  small  and  their  influence 
inappreciable.  The  great  majority  of  men  of 
all  ages  have  been  profoundly  interested  in  the 
question  of  humanity,  After  death — what?  In 
view  of  the  precious  memories  of  many  loved 
ones  who  have  gone  away,  and  amid  the  increas¬ 
ing  monitions  of  wasting  strength  which  sooner 
118 


Does  Death  End  All?  119 

or  later  come  to  all,  in  the  stillness  of  the  calm 
night  which  breedeth  thought”  the  solemn  ques¬ 
tions  will  arise:  Where  are  our  depaited  loved 
ones?  Do  they  still  live?  Have  they  utterly 
perished,  or  shall  we  meet  them  again?  As 
soon  as  from  this  earth  we  go,  what  will  become 
of  us  ?  Few  men  are  so  worldly  or  so  busy  as 
not  to  find  time  to  consider  these  questions. 

The  great  mass  of  men,  barbarian  and  civil¬ 
ized,  in  all  ages  and  countries,  have  believed 
that  man  lives  after  death,  and,  but  foi  diverting 
attention  from  the  main  question  under  consid¬ 
eration,  it  would  be  interesting  to  draw  a  sketch 
and  make  an  analysis  of  the  many  different  opin¬ 
ions  which  have  prevailed  among  the  Druids, 
Scandinavians,  Etruscans,  Egyptians,  Persians, 
Hebrews,  Greeks  and  Romans,  Brahmans  and 
Buddhists,  including  Christians  of  primitive, 
mediaeval  and  modern  times.  Those  who  de¬ 
sire  to  pursue  this  subject  could  not  do  better 
than  study  A  Critical  History  of  the  Doctrine 
of  a  Future  Life ,  by  an  accomplished  Unitarian 
clergyman,  William  R.  Alger.  It  will  be  found, 
contrary  to  the  general  impression,  that  in  all 
ages  there  have  been  those  who  were  not  only 
sceptical  on  the  question  of  the  future  life,  but 
who  have  not  hesitated  to  affirm  that  death  ends 
all  that  there  is  of  man.  No  people  of  ancient 
or  modern  times  were  ever  so  indifferent  and 


i  20  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


doubting  on  this  subject  as  the  ancient  Jews. 
In  all  the  writings  ascribed  to  Moses  there  is 
not  one  allusion  to  a  life  after  death,  and  there 
is  no  sanction  to  his  laws  drawn  from  reward  or 
punishment  after  this  life.  It  was  not  until  after 
the  captivity  in  Babylon  that  the  Jews  knew 
anything  of  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life  so  dis¬ 
tinctly  taught  by  the  Persians.  There  is  no 
book  extant,  not  to  say  religious  book,  so  full 
of  sceptical  expressions  regarding  the  utter 
extinction  of  man  at  death  as  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  Not  to  mention  the  scepticism  with 
which  the  book  of  Job  abounds,  take  the  fol¬ 
lowing  from  David’s  Psalms,  so  called :  “  For  in 
death  there  is  no  remembrance  of  thee  :  in  the 
grave  who  shall  give  thee  thanks?”  (Ps.  6  :  5); 
“  Wilt  thou  show  wonders  to  the  dead  ?  Shall 
the  dead  arise  and  praise  thee?”  (Ps.  88  :  10); 
“  The  dead  praise  not  the  Lord,  neither  any  that 
go  down  into  silence”  (Ps.  115  :  17);  “His 
breath  goeth  forth,  he  returneth  to  his  earth, 
in  that  very  day  his  thoughts  perish  ”  (Ps.  146  : 
4).  Solomon  was  even  more  outspoken  in  his 
materialism  :  “  Man  has  no  pre-eminence  above 
a  beast.  .  .  .  All  go  unto  one  place,  all  are  of 
the  dust,  and  all  turn  to  dust  again  ”  (Eccles.  3  : 
19,  20) ;  “  For  the  living  know  that  they  shall 
die,  but  the  dead  know  not  anything,  neither 
have  they  any  more  a  reward  ;  for  the  memory 


Does  Death  End  All? 


I  21 


of  them  is  forgotten.  Also  their  love  and  their 
hatred  and  their  envy  is  now  perished,  neither 
have  they  any  more  a  portion  for  ever  in  any¬ 
thing  that  is  done  under  the  sun  ”  (Eccles.  9  : 
4-6).  It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  these  quo¬ 
tations,  but  no  man  familiar  with  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  can  doubt  the  statement  we  have 
made  regarding  their  prevailing  scepticism. 

It  must  have  been  natural  for  primeval  men 
to  look  upon  the  death  and  decay  of  the  body 
as  the  end  of  all  life,  as  they  could  only  judge 
from  appearances.  So  far  as  they  could  see, 
there  was  nothing  of  man  but  his  material  form, 
and  when  that  decomposed  there  was  nothing 
left  but  its  original  elements.  But  as  intelligence 
increased  and  reason  assumed  its  rightful  throne, 
it  became  evident  that  external  appearances  are 
not  always  sure  guides  to  truth.  A  grain  of 
corn  does  not  appear  to  contain  the  future  har¬ 
vest,  nor  is  there  any  semblance  of  the  majestic 
oak  in  the  tiny  acorn.  The  beautiful  butterfly 
is  not  visible  in  the  worm,  nor  the  worm  in  the 
egg.  Millions  of  appearances  are  found  by  ob¬ 
servation  and  experience  and  the  demonstrations 
of  science  to  give  no  hint  to  inward  truth,  but 
seem  opposed  to  it. 

In  modern  times  the  word  agnostic  has  come 
into  common  use,  though  Noah  Webster  never 
heard  of  it.  It  conveys  the  idea  of  know-noth- 


122  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 

ing.  It  is  the  plea  of  ignorance.  It  is  not  an 
argument  to  say,  “  I  do  not  know.”  It  is  the 
diffident  admission  of  suspense.  It  is  a  state 
of  mind  with  which  no  fault  can  be  found  if  the 
man  is  sincere.  One  can  have  more  respect  for 
honest  doubt  than  for  blind  faith.  But  it  is  not 
rational  or  modest  to  assume  that  what  is  un¬ 
known  to  us  must  be  false,  or  what  one  does 
not  know  himself  cannot  be  known  to  others. 
We  cannot  wisely  accept  the  narrow  horizon  of 
our  feeble  minds  as  the  boundary-line  of  the 
universe.  “There  are  more  things  in  heaven 
and  earth  than  are  dreamed  of  in  our  philos¬ 
ophy.”  We  now  have  perfect  knowledge  of 
many  things  of  which  we  were  once  ignorant. 
The  embryo  man  in  the  gestative  period  has  no 
knowledge  of  the  wonderful  career  that  awaits 
him,  and  the  child  is  an  agnostic  regarding 
many  facts  well  known  in  manhood.  The  tele¬ 
graph  and  telephone  were  unknown  within  the 
memory  of  men  not  yet  hoary  with  age.  The 
learned  professors  in  our  medical  colleges  were 
agnostics  as  to  successful  anaesthetics  until  yes¬ 
terday. 

We  have  great  respect  for  agnostics — if  they 
are  really  willing  to  learn.  A  hesitating,  inquir¬ 
ing  mind  is  not  evidence  of  a  vicious  disposition 
or  of  total  depravity.  When  Robert  G.  Inger- 
soll  stood  at  the  grave  of  his  brother  and  ex- 


Does  Death  End  All? 


123 


pressed  his  agnosticism,  he  at  the  same  time 
gave  vent  to  a  feeling  that  was  creditable  to 
both  intellect  and  heart.  Let  us  read  his  words : 

“Life  is  a  narrow  vale  between  the  cold  and  barren 
peaks  of  two  eternities  :  we  strive  in  vain  to  look  beyond 
the  heights ;  we  cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the 
echo  of  our  wailing  cry  ;  from  the  voiceless  lips  of  the 
unreplying  dead  there  comes  no  word.  But  in  the  night 
of  death  hope  sees  a  star  and  listening  love  can  hear  the 
7'ustle  of  a  wing.  He  who  sleeps  here,  when  dying,  mis¬ 
taking  the  approach  of  death  for  returning  health,  whis¬ 
pered  with  his  latest  breath,  '/  am  better  7iowi  Let  us 
believe,  in  spite  of  doubts  and  dogmas  and  tears  and 
fears,  that  these  dear  words  are  true  of  all  the  countless 
dead.” 

Much  of  the  scepticism  of  the  past  has  arisen 
from  the  assumptions  and  illogical  conclusions 
of  a  speculative  philosophy  now  happily  ex¬ 
ploded.  To  many  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life 
has  been  unattractive  because  of  the  severe 
asceticism  with  which  it  has  often  been  asso¬ 
ciated.  Others  have  been  quite  willing  to  forego 
a  future  life  because  of  their  miseries  in  this,  and 
others  have  steadfastly  refused  to  believe  in  the 
future  life  because  of  the  hellish  pictures  that 
have  been  drawn  of  the  doom  of  the  majority 
of  our  race.  Multitudes  have  rejected  the  im¬ 
mortality  of  the  soul  to  get  clear  of  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  torture  taught  by  all  the  great  theol¬ 
ogies  ;  and  many  sagacious  persons  have  denied 


124  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

the  doctrine  of  a  future  personal  conscious  ex¬ 
istence  because  they  have  fully  realized  that  it 
is  the  principal  stock  in  trade  of  selfish  priests 
and  preachers,  who  appeal  to  the  fears  of  their 
ignorant  dupes,  and  offer  their  mediatorial  ser¬ 
vices  to  enable  them  to  escape  just  punishment. 
Of  all  the  diabolical  devices  of  priestcraft,  none 
can  compare  with  the  purgatorial  fiction  which 
extends  its  power  over  the  destinies  of  men 
even  after  they  have  passed  from  earth. 

But  aside  from  these  incidental  matters,  the 
question  still  remains  unanswered :  “  If  a  man 
die,  shall  he  live  again?”  There  is  a  handful 
of  mystical,  well-meaning  men  who  have  adopt¬ 
ed  the  fanciful,  Frenchy  conception  of  Auguste 
Comte.  They  call  themselves  Positivists ,  and 
claim  to  have  discovered  a  scientific  religion, 
though  had  certain  well-established  principles 
of  science  been  known  when  Comte  wrote,  the 
world  would  never  have  heard  of  his  vagaries. 
With  them  the  future  life  of  man  is  subjective, 
not  objective.  A  great  and  good  man  lives 
after  death,  not  in  reality,  but  in  the  partial 
thoughts  of  grateful  friends.  They  say  in  their 
catechism  the  dead  have  “  a  subjective  immor¬ 
tality  in  the  brains  of  the  living.”  It  is,  more¬ 
over,  an  exclusive,  select  arrangement.  Only 
those  are  immortal  who  are  made  so  by  the 
suffrage  of  survivors.  But  then  they  become 


Does  Death  End  All? 


125 


God,  a  “  Supreme  Being  ” — Le  Grand  Etre,  “  the 
fictitious  product  of  a  poetic  personification  ! 
Great  Humanity — whose  very  existence  is  a 
pretence,  a  simulation,  a  shadow,  a  nothing — 
is  God  !  How  grand  and  noble  men  can  satisfy 
themselves  with  this  illusive  bubble  is  one  of  the 
things  that  no  man  can  explain.  It  makes  God 
a  sort  of  <7?/ ^’-corporation,  and  the  immortality 
of  man  a  memory ,  which  of  course  may  be  lost, 
or  which  may  change  if  further  light  should 
lead  to  a  different  estimate  of  the  dead  man. 

No  wonder  that  Professor  Huxley  said  of 
Positivism,  “//  is  as  thoroughly  antagonistic  to 
the  very  essence  of  science  as  anything  in  ultra¬ 
montane  Catholicism .”  In  contrasting  Comte 
with  Hume  the  same  scientist  speaks  of  the 
former  as  “a  French  writer  of  fifty  years  later 
date,  in  whose  dreary  and  verbose  pages  we  miss 
alike  the  vigor  of  thought  and  the  clearness  of 
style ”  of  Hume.  John  W.  Chadwick  well  said 
of  Positivism,  “  Is  it  not,  after  all,  a  sort  of  make- 
believe  religion?  Its  God,  its  immortality,  its 
prayer,  are  substitutes  for  the  God,  the  immor¬ 
tality  and  prayer  of  bona-fide  religion,”  etc. 

But  little  better,  if  any,  than  these  filmy  French 
fancies  is  the  theory  of  succession — that  all  im¬ 
mortality  consists  in  living  in  one’s  children  or 
descendants,  that  “  men  are  the  mortal  cells  of 
immortal  humanity.”  It  would  be  a  poor  com- 


126  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

fort  to  think,  in  view  of  death,  that  though  per¬ 
sonal  annihilation  awaits  us,  others  will  live  in 
our  stead,  who  in  turn  must  themselves  be 
blotted  out  of  existence.  Real  satisfaction  can 
never  be  found  in  any  flimsy  substitute  for  a 
real  future  life.  This  age  is  too  practical,  too 
realistic,  to  be  put  off  with  semblances  and 
shams.  Another  modern  theory  is,  that  the 
wicked  will  be  annihilated,  but  that  through 
Christ  believers  shall  attain  eternal  life.  This 
scheme  gets  rid  of  the  horrid  dogma  of  the 
eternal  torture  of  the  non-elect,  and  is  capable 
of  a  very  plausible  presentation.  Dobney  and 
Ham  of  England,  and  Hudson  of  Massachu¬ 
setts,  and  Professor  Ives  of  Yale  College,  have 
written  ably  in  support  of  this  hypothesis,  and 
the  late  Chancellor  Halstead  of  New  Jersey 
published  a  book  maintaining  it  on  Scripture 
grounds.  Those  who  accept  the  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion  and  authority  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments  would  find  it  difficult  to  answer  these 
gentlemen  and  many  others  who  have  advocated 
this  view.  On  rational  and  philosophical  grounds 
but  little  can  be  said  in  its  support.  Science 
teaches  that  there  is  no  creation  nor  destruction, 
but  only  change,  and  her  doctrine  of  conserva¬ 
tion  of  energy  itself  furnishes  ground  for  the 
belief  in  human  immortality.  But  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  there  never  was  a  time  when  the 


Does  Death  End  All? 


127 


denial  of  the  future  life  of  man  has  had  so 
many  and  such  respectable  supporters  as  at  pres¬ 
ent.  The  tendency  of  what  is  called  “scientific 
thought,”  in  England,  France,  Germany,  and  even 
in  these  United  States,  is  undoubtedly  in  this  di¬ 
rection.  And  yet  the  number  of  scientific  men 
who  dissent  from  these  gloomy  conclusions,  and 
profess  their  faith  in  the  continuity  of  human 
life,  is  equally  large  and  respectable. 

The  scientific  disbelievers  in  life  after  death 
take  the  ground  that  what  constitutes  the  mental 
part  of  man  is  the  result  of  physical  organiza¬ 
tion,  the  brain  and  nervous  system ;  that  self- 
consciousness,  thought  and  intelligence  are  func¬ 
tions  or  products  of  certain  physical  organs, 
and  that  when  these  give  out  and  lose  their 
vitality  the  effects  will  cease ;  that  as  the  blood 
ceases  to  flow  when  the  heart  ceases  to  beat, 
and  the  loss  of  sight  follows  the  destruction  of 
the  eyeball,  so  all  thought  must  perish  when 
the  brain  and  nerves  are  paralyzed  and  worn 
out.  Then,  in  addition  to  this  physiological 
hypothesis,  a  certain  school  of  evolutionists  tell 
us  that  man  has  been  developed  from  an  inferior 
animal,  and  that  his  moral  and  intellectual  facul¬ 
ties  differ  from  those  of  other  animals  in  degree 
only,  and  not  in  quality  ;  in  short,  that  man  is 
only  a  more  highly-developed  animal,  and  that 
he  must  therefore  share  the  fate  of  all  animals 


128  Man — Whence  and  Whither ? 


and  cease  to  live  after  death.  These  suggestions 
are  so  plausible,  and  put  forth  with  such  assur¬ 
ance  and  show  of  learning,  that  a  brief  examina¬ 
tion  of  them  is  proper. 

The  late  lamented  and  justly-honored  Pro¬ 
fessor  John  W.  Draper,  M.  D.,  in  his  work 
Human  Physiology  (pp.  283,  etc.),  says  that 
from  his  study  of  “  cerebral  mechanism  ”  he 
finds  that  an  automatic  mechanism  and  the 
agent  which  moves  it  are  to  be  determined  the 
one  by  the  other.  The  agent  being  known,  the 
effects  may  be  anticipated,  and  the  effects  or 
mechanism  being  known,  the  agent  may  be 
determined.  He  says : 

“  Now,  the  problem  we  are  dealing  with  is  of  this 
inverse  kind.  It  may  be  stated :  Given  the  structure 
of  the  cerebrum,  to  determine  the  nature  of  the  agent 
that  sets  it  in  action.  And  herein  the  fact  which  chiefly 
guides  us  is  the  absolute  analogy  in  construction  between 
the  elementary  arrangement  of  the  cerebrum  and  any 
other  nervous  arc. 

“  In  it  we  plainly  recognize  the  centripetal  and  cen¬ 
trifugal  fibres,  and  their  convergence  to  the  sensory 
ganglia,  the  corpus  striatum  and  optic  thalamus;  we 
notice  the  vesicular  material  at  their  external  periphery 
as  presented  in  the  convolutions  of  the  human  brain ; 
and  if  in  other  nervous  arcs  the  structure  is  merely  auto¬ 
matic,  and  can  display  no  phenomena  of  itself,  but 
requires  the  influence  of  an  external  agent;  if  the 
optical  apparatus  be  inert  and  without  value  save  under 
the  influences  of  light ;  if  the  auditory  apparatus  yields 
no  results  save  under  the  impressions  of  sound, — since 


Does  Death  End  All?  129 

there  is  between  these  structures  and  the  elementary 
structure  of  the  cerebrum  a  perfect  analogy,  we  are  en¬ 
titled  to  come  to  the  same  conclusion  in  this  instance  as 
in  those,  and,  asserting  the  absolute  inertness  of  the 
cerebral  structure  itself,  to  impute  the  phenomena  it  dis¬ 
plays  to  an  agent  as  perfectly  external  to  the  body  and  as 
independent  of  it  as  are  light  and  sound  ;  and  that  agent 
is  the  soul.  .  .  .  Those  who  have  accused  physiology 
of  tending  toward  Materialism  have  never  duly  weighed 
the  accusation  they  make,  and  certainly  have  never 
understood  the  arguments  it  can  present.” 

The  claim  that  human  mentality  is  purely  the 
result  of  physical  causes  and  organic  action  is  a 
bold  assumption,  and  nothing  more.  It  would 
be  more  rational  to  say  that  the  action  of  a 
material  organ  is  the  product  and  evidence  of 
an  agent  or  cause  superior  to  it.  Materialists 
assume  that  there  is  nothing  but  matter,  and 
generally  recognize  it  in  its  grosser  forms.  But 
those  agencies  which  are  most  potential  are  not 
gross,  but  invisible  and  intangible,  like  heat, 
light,  magnetism,  electricity  and  gravitation. 
We  have  as  good  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
that  which,  for  want  of  a  better  word,  we  call 
spirit  as  we  have  of  the  existence  of  matter — 
viz.  by  palpable  manifestations.  Every  man  has 
an  abiding  consciousness  that  there  is  in  and 
behind  his  physical  organs  a  something  which 
is  the  moving  force.  His  external  organs  are 
inert.  They  have  no  more  power  of  self-moving 
than  the  stones  upon  which  he  walks  or  the  staff 


9 


130  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 

which  he  holds  in  his  hand.  He  is  sovereign. 
His  physical  organs  are  his  willing  subjects  and 
slaves.  And  the  conclusion  is  so  inevitable  as 
to  make  it  axiomatic,  that  what  moves  an  inert 
substance  must  itself  be  as  real  and  substantial 
as  the  thing  acted  upon.  Professor  Haeckel, 
the  acknowledged  leader  in  the  materialistic 
school  of  Germany,  affirms  that  “  the  life-force 
which  moves  our  bodies  is  nothing  but  the 
complicated  motion  of  the  material  molecules 
of  the  brain  and  other  portions  of  our  living 
organism.”  A  child  can  be  made  to  see  his 
fallacy  of  confounding  two  things  which  are 
altogether  different  and  distinct,  and  of  using 
words  interchangeably  that  have  an  entirely 
different  meaning — viz.  the  words  force  and 
motion.  He  says  that  motion  moves,  thus 
making  an  effect  a  cause.  There  can  be  no 
motion  without  a  producing  force.  The  cause 
is  substantial,  entitative,  a  real  something,  but 
the  effect  is  phenomenal.  Motion  is  a  process 
— the  behavior  of  an  inert  body  under  the  con¬ 
tact  of  an  adequate  agency.  Motion  really 
effects  nothing,  only  as  it  is  itself  effected. 
Back  of  motion  there  must  be  a  force ,  an  orig¬ 
inal  actual  cause.  And,  as  before  suggested, 
the  real  and  most  potential  agencies  of  the  uni¬ 
verse  are  the  invisible,  impalpable  and  incom¬ 
prehensible.  Is  gravitation  less  real  than  the 


Does  Death  End  All? 


1 3i 

universe  which  it  sustains  and  propels  in  order¬ 
ly  motion  ?  Is  light  less  real  than  the  glass 
through  which  it  passes  ?  Is  electricity  less 
real  than  the  magnet  and  the  metal  which  it  puts 
in  motion,  even  though  a  plate  of  glass  intervene 
between  the  magnet  and  the  metal  ?  Is  there 
no  such  thing  as  spirit,  because  you  cannot  see 
it,  taste  it,  handle  it  and  weigh  it?  Can  you 
put  gravitation  in  your  crucibles  and  ascertain 
its  component  parts  ?  And  yet  men  calling 
themselves  scientists  decide  that  man  has  no 
soul,  is  not  a  spirit,  because  spirit  cannot  be 
weighed  in  scales  or  measured  by  tape-lines 
and  its  dimensions  described  bv  scale  and  di- 

J 

viders  by  the  rules  of  trigonometry.  That  the 
mental  side  of  man  results  from  the  physical 
is  an  assumption  as  unfounded  as  that  the  men¬ 
tal  must  perish  with  the  material.  It  is  admitted 
that  there  is  a  close  connection  and  a  present 
mutual  dependence,  but  there  is  good  reason  for 
believing  that  man’s  nature  is  dual ;  that  he  has 
an  interior,  invisible  body  within  and  permeating 
the  gross  external  organism ;  that  he  has  interior 
organs  that  can  see  without  the  use  of  his  mate¬ 
rial  eyeballs,  and  that  he  hears  sweet  voices  and 
celestial  music  which  do  not  depend  upon  the 
material  tympanum.  Materialists  assume  that 
spirit  cannot  act  without  physical  organs,  and 
that  it  has  none  other.  It  may  be  admitted  that 


132  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

physical  manifestations  can  only  be  made  through 
physical  organs  and  be  perceived  by  physical 
senses,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  there  are  no 
other  than  physical  organs.  There  may  be  ma¬ 
terial  organs  in  man  so  refined,  so  attenuated, 
so  subtile,  as  not  to  be  subject  to  material  tests 
and  observation  by  his  gross  material  senses. 
We  can  even  conceive  of  spirit  pure  and  sim¬ 
ple,  the  very  opposite  of  matter,  and  we  can  con¬ 
ceive  of  something  called  spirit  which  never¬ 
theless  is  material,  but  so  rarefied  and  ethereal, 
so  unlike  the  grosser  forms  of  matter  cognized 
by  our  present  dull  senses  and  rough,  bungling 
crucibles,  as  to  be  essentially  unlike  it,  having 
none  of  its  apparent  properties. 

That  there  is  some  such  principle  or  potency 
in  man  is  demonstrated  by  indubitable  evidence. 
When  these  visible  organs  disintegrate  in  death 
there  may  be,  and  no  doubt  are,  the  equivalents 
of  what  these  organs  were.  But  even  if  this 
cannot  be  maintained,  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  human  Ego  perishes  with  the  physical 
organism,  as  it  may  survive  in  some  other 
mode  inconceivably  higher  and  grander.  It 
may  pass  into  other  material  bodies,  or  it  may 
enter  into  a  new  body  specially  prepared  for  it. 
This  would  be  no  more  marvellous  than  that 
man  should  have  first  started  from  an  ovum  so 
infinitesimal  that  the  shell  of  a  bird’s  egg  would 


Does  Death  End  All?  133 

hold  a  sufficient  number  of  germs  to  populate 

our  earth.  What  we  hope  for  man  is  no  more 

incredible  than  what  has  already  been  realized. 

* 

The  argument  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  future  life  growing  out  of  the  alleged 
animal  descent  of  man  is  even  less  substantial 
than  the  physiological  hypothesis.  The  theory 
that  man  is  a  lineal  descendant  of  a  common 
irrational  animal  is  also  an  assumption.  It  is 
not  proved,  and  cannot  be  proved.  This  is  sub¬ 
stantially  admitted  by  Darwin  and  his  ablest 
disciples.  As  long  as  the  search  for  the  “  miss¬ 
ing  link”  is  unsuccessful,  the  chain  is  imaginary. 
As  far  back  as  science  can  trace  man  he  is  a 
man,  and  removed  from  the  monkey  and  the 
anthropoid  ape  so  far,  in  almost  innumerable 
respects,  as  to  make  him  an  entirely  distinct 
species.  Primeval  man  was  ape-like  in  some 
respects,  but  not  an  ape.  He  was  inferior  to 
what  he  is  now,  but  the  contrast  between  man 
as  we  first  find  him  and  man  as  we  now  know 
him  is  very  much  less  than  the  contrast  be¬ 
tween  the  lowest  ancient  man  and  the  highest 
ape,  even  as  he  exists  after  the  lapse  of  millions 
of  years.  If  man  is  a  development  of  the  ape 
or  some  other  animal,  why  have  no  such  devel¬ 
opments  taken  place  for  unnumbered  ages  ?  A 
truly  scientific  system  of  evolution  does  not 
necessarily  involve  the  hypothesis  of  the  devel- 


134  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

opment  of  man  from  one  or  another  of  the 
lower  animals.  But  should  the  animal  descent 
of  man  be  admitted,  it  does  not  follow  that  he 
will  not  survive  the  disintegration  of  his  animal 
body.  If  man  is  a  highly-developed  animal,  a 
capacity  for  continuous  life  may  have  been  de¬ 
veloped,  and  there  may  have  been  a  time  in  the 
progress  of  evolution  when  the  mortal  animal 
merged  into  an  immortal  man.  There  is  a  time 
when  the  unreasoning  child  begins  to  reason — 
a  line  between  childhood  and  manhood  that 
cannot  be  easily  defined ;  so  there  may  be  an 
indefinable  point  between  apehood  and  man¬ 
hood.  Immortality  may  not  be  inherent,  or  a 
necessary  quality  of  even  the  highest  type  of 
man,  but  that  some  men  at  least  have  a  capacity 
for  continuous  existence  cannot  be  doubted.  If 
there  is  a  Power  or  Force  that  made  man  out 
of  a  monkey,  that  same  Force  can  certainly 
carry  on  the  process  until  he  becomes  an  angel 
or  something  higher. 

And  then  the  scheme  of  evolution  may  not 
be  limited  to  this  pebble  of  a  world.  Esoteric 
Buddhism  has  been  shown  by  Mr.  A.  P.  Sinnett 
to  have  a  grander  and  more  elaborate  theory  of 
evolution  than  Darwin  ever  dreamed  of,  and  that 
centuries  before  he  was  born.  May  not  man, 
after  the  death  of  his  animal  form,  enter  into  a 
wider  and  deeper  stream  of  evolution  in  this  or 


Does  Death  End  All? 


135 


some  other  planet,  just  as  naturally  as  he  began 
mysteriously  to  float  in  the  present  stream  if 
not  with  personal  consciousness,  with  something 
higher  and  better?  There  is  ample  time  yet  to 
come.  There  are  innumerable  worlds.  There 
are  infinite  possibilities.  The  miracle  of  awak¬ 
ing  into  conscious  existence  without  any  agen¬ 
cy  of  our  own  has  once  occurred,  and  it  may  be 
repeated  on  a  grander  scale  in  our  second  birth. 
Even  Haeckel  admits  that  “all  matter  is  in  a 
certain  sense  alive,”  and  approvingly  quotes 
Bruno,  that  “  a  spirit  exists  in  all  things,  and 
no  body  is  so  small  but  contains  a  part  of  the 
divine  substance  within  itself,  by  which  it  is 
animated.”  These  admissions  favor  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  a  future  conscious  existence,  to  say 
the  least.  While  science  whispers  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  annihilation,  we  accept  as  a  ne¬ 
cessary  corollary  that  the  human  Ego  will  not 
cease  to  exist. 

But  the  sceptic  not  only  assumes  the  animal 
origin  of  man,  but  also  assumes  the  mortality 
and  destruction  of  all  animals.  How  do  we 
know  that  animals  have  no  future  existence? 
Agassiz,  in  his  Contributions  to  the  Natural  His¬ 
tory  of  the  United  States,  advocates  the  idea  that 
animals  as  well  as  men  have  a  future  life.  Cole¬ 
ridge  has  beautifully  defended  the  same  idea,  and 
the  doctrine  of  eternal  monads,  maintained  by 


136  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

Leibnitz,  favors  the  immortality  of  all  creatures. 
Richard  Dean  (many  others  have  written  on  the 
same  subject)  published  a  genial  essay  on  The 
Future  Life  of  Brutes .  John  Wesley  favored 
this  doctrine,  and  so  does  Joseph  Cook  of  the 
Boston  Monday  Lectureship .  It  is  capable  of 
being  presented  in  a  very  attractive  aspect,  as 
was  done  by  Goethe,  who  was  a  scientist  as  well 
as  a  poet. 

But  it  is  easier  to  defend  the  doctrine  of  the 
future  life  of  man  than  of  beasts.  Man  antici¬ 
pates  and  provides  for  death ;  often  dies  with 
unrewarded  merit  or  guilt;  dies  with  faculties 
fitted  for  a  more  perfect  state  of  existence ;  dies 
with  the  expectation  of  another  life;  rears  me¬ 
morials  to  departed  friends;  and  even  makes 
death  a  victory  instead  of  a  defeat  by  his  patri¬ 
otism  and  philanthropy.  These  suggestions, 
formulated  by  Bretschneider  and  others,  migfht 
be  indefinitely  increased,  showing  the  difference 
between  men  and  beasts.  And  it  is  just  as 
logical  to  argue  the  future  life  of  the  lower 
animals  from  certain  resemblances  to  man  as 
to  argue  the  annihilation  of  man  from  his  re¬ 
semblance  to  beasts.  It  would  be  more  easy 
to  believe  in  the  future  life  of  the  noble  horse 
and  faithful  dog — nay,  in  the  future  life  of  the 
lowest  animal— than  to  believe  in  the  utter 
extinction  of  the  god-like  powers  of  the  phil- 


Does  Death  End  All? 


137 


osopher,  the  poet  and  the  philanthropist.  The 
universe  is  large  enough  for  all,  and  the  re¬ 
sources  of  Infinity  can  never  be  exhausted. 

Disbelievers  in  the  future  life  never  weary  in 
reiterating  the  cases  recorded  in  school-books 
on  intellectual  philosophy  showing  that  in  cer¬ 
tain  cases,  where  the  brain  has  been  injured, 
thought  ceased.  For  an  example :  A  British 
officer  in  a  naval  engagement  was  struck  by  a 
shell  when  in  the  act  of  giving  an  order,  and 
became  unconscious.  Years  afterward  a  sur¬ 
gical  operation  was  performed,  and  the  instant 
the  fractured  skull  was  raised  from  pressing  on 
the  brain  he  finished  the  order  which  he  was  not 
able  to  utter  when  struck  by  the  missile.  The 
argument  from  this  and  similar  cases  is,  that 
mentality  is  a  product  of  the  brain,  and  dies 
with  it.  This  is  not  a  necessary  conclusion. 
In  this  case  the  power  of  communicating  thought 
by  speech  was  interrupted  by  the  injury  to  the 
brain,  but  that  which  thinks  was  not  destroyed, 
as  shown  by  the  promptness  and  precision  with 
which  the  interrupted  order  was  finished.  The 
same  power  or  capacity  for  thought  must  have 
existed  during  the  interval  of  the  patient’s 
physical  derangement,  and  the  case  rather 
proves  the  independent,  substantial  and  enti- 
tative  character  of  the  mind,  which  held  the 
order  in  abeyance,  and  then  communicated  it 


138  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


to  the  external  organs  of  others  as  soon  as  the 
only  physical  medium  of  communication  was  in 
proper  condition.  When  the  telegraphic  ope¬ 
rator  fails  to  communicate  with  his  fellow-ope¬ 
rator  at  a  distant  point,  he  does  not  conclude 
that  electricity  has  been  annihilated  and  that 
his  battery  has  lost  its  power,  but  that  the 
medium  of  communication,  the  wire,  has  been 
broken  or  deranged.  The  physical  brain  is 
the  medium  of  communicating  thoughts  to 
others  through  their  physical  organism,  but  it 
cannot  be  shown  that  the  brain  ever  originated 
a  single  thought.  All  the  learned  talk  about 
thought  being  produced  by  the  “molecular  mo¬ 
tion  ”  of  the  atoms  of  the  brain  is  the  baseless 
assumption  of  Materialism.  There  must  be 
something  back  of  “  protoplasm  ”  and  “  mole¬ 
cules.”  Force  must  exist  before  it  can  be  “  cor¬ 
related,”  and  “  natural  selection  ”  destitute  of 
intelligent  and  discriminating  purpose  would  be 
nothing  but  blind  chance. 

Who  can  look  upon  the  wondrous  form  of 
man,  and  hear  him  talk  and  laugh  and  reason, 
and  contemplate  his  wondrous  philosophical 
achievements,  and  then  rationally -conclude  that 
all  is  the  result  of  the  fortunate  but  automatic 
“motion  of  the  molecules”  of  his  brain?  Where 
there  is  motion  there  must  be  a  mover ,  and  where 
there  is  thought  there  must  be  back  of  it  that 


Does  Death  End  All ? 


139 


which  has  the  power,  the  capacity,  to  think. 
When  you  demand  the  proof  and  ask  us  to 
tell  you  what  the  mind  is,  how  it  acts,  we 
answer  that  we  will  do  so  when  materialists 
tell  us  what  mciltev  is,  and  how  and  why  it  acts 
in  certain  ways.  We  point  them  to  the  admis¬ 
sions  of  science  that  there  are  in  Nature  all 
around  us  many  things  that  are  invisible  and 
impalpable,  entirely  beyond  the  range  of  our 
corporeal  senses.  It  is  therefore  supeificial  and 
unscientific  to  assume  that  man  has  only  a  ma¬ 
terial  existence,  and  that  there  is  nothing  of 
him  but  what  our  bodily  senses  cognize.  The 
whole  analogy  of  Nature  shows  the  absurdity 
of  such  conclusions.  We  cast  no  reflections 
upon  the  mental  capacity  of  disbelievers. 
Haeckel  and  Huxley  are  far  removed  from 
idiocy,  and  it  is  a  source  of  perpetual  wonder 
how  such  men,  and  multitudes  of  others  of 
equal  mental  capacity,  should  seem  so  anxious 
to  prove  man  mortal.  They  must  be  sincere. 
They  could  have  no  motive  to  deceive  and 
mislead.  The  spirit  of  scientific  sceptics,  and 
their  lives  too,  are  often  more  Christ-like  than 
the  spirit  and  the  lives  of  those  calling  them¬ 
selves  Christians.  Some  men  are  naturally 
sceptical  about  spiritual  things,  while  they  are 
wholly  rational,  and  sometimes  credulous,  in 
other  matters.  Can  it  be  that  they  are  deficient 


140  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

in  what  phrenologists  call  spirituality ,  possessed 
in  such  large  measure  by  others  ?  There  are 
occasions,  perhaps,  when  all  men  have  doubts  and 
fears  regarding  the  future  life,  and  their  ques¬ 
tionings  should  be  respected,  and,  if  possible, 
answered. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  class  of  persons  in  modern 
times  who  so  positively  affirm  their  belief  in  a 
future  life,  and  yet  strangely  show  so  little  real 
faith  in  what  they  profess,  as  the  great  mass 
of  orthodox  Christians.  Their  want  of  faith  is 
shown  in  their  well-known  dread  of  death,  in 
their  distress  and  apprehension  of  mind  in 
sickness  and  the  last  hours  of  closing  life,  and 
in  their  gloomy  dress  and  immoderate  mourn¬ 
ing  in  bereavement.  These  things  naturally 
arise  from  their  horrible  tenets  regarding  the 
fate  of  the  non-elect,  the  inevitable  doom  of 
the  majority,  which  has  thrown  a  pall  of  gloom 
over  this  bright  world  and  blighted  the  happi¬ 
ness  of  many  a  genial  soul  in  life  and  in  death. 
And  then  they  have  filled  many  rational  minds 
with  doubt  and  uncertainty  by  making  the  future 
life  of  man  to  depend  wholly  upon  a  single  his¬ 
torical  fact — the  resurrection  of  the  material 
body  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  alleged  to  have 
occurred  nearly  nineteen  hundred  years  ago ; 
regarding  which  all  candid  investigators  must 
admit  the  evidence  to  be  very  incomplete  and 


Does  Death  End  All  ? 


141 

contradictory.  An  incalculable  amount  of  scep¬ 
ticism  has  arisen  from  the  orthodox  dogma  that 
the  future  life  of  man  depends  upon  the  doctiine 
of  the  literal  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  the  con¬ 
sequent  literal  physical  resurrection  of  all  hu¬ 
man  bodies.  They  say,  “No  resurrection  of 
the  material  body,  no  future  life.”  This  is  just 
as  foolhardy  as  their  kindred  alternative,  If 
every  part  of  the  Bible  is  not  true,  none  of  it  is 
true.”  The  doctrine  of  the  literal  resurrection 
of  the  physical  body  is  unscientific  and  impos¬ 
sible.  The  body  of  Roger  Williams  was  ab¬ 
sorbed  by  an  apple  tree,  and  the  fruit  of  this 
tree  was  eaten  and  became  part  of  other  human 
bodies ;  and  the  body  of  the  Rev.  Isaac  Mc- 
Inness  of  this  city  became  part  of  a  mulberry 
tree,  the  berries  of  which  were  eaten  by  genera¬ 
tions  of  happy  children. 

But  these  Christians  are  also  guilty  of  the 
absurdity  of  arguing  the  resurrection  of  all 
human  bodies  from  the  alleged  resurrection  of 
one  whom  they  claim  to  have  been  superhuman 
— without  a  human  father.  If  one  “  conceived 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  ”  did  have  a  bodily  resurrection,  it  does 
not  follow  that  those  conceived  of  human  fa¬ 
thers  and  born  of  women  not  virgins  are  as  a 
consequence  to  have  a  similar  resui lection,  es¬ 
pecially  when  it  is  affirmed  that  Jesus  raised 


142  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

himself.  And  it  does  not  follow  that  because 
a  body  had  a  resurrection  after  having  been  in 
a  stone  cave  part  of  three  days,  all  bodies  must 
have  a  resurrection  though  decomposed  for  mil¬ 
lions  of  years  and  mixed  with  innumerable  other 
bodies. 

Then  our  orthodox  friends  have  other  absurd¬ 
ities  relating  to  this  subject  that  are  equally  pro¬ 
ductive  of  scepticism.  They  believe  that  when 
a  man  dies,  he — that  is,  the  spirit,  the  real  man 
— goes  immediately  to  a  place  of  happiness 
which  they  call  heaven,  or  to  a  place  of  torment 
which  they  call  hell.  They  believe  that  men 
have  a  conscious  existence  of  happiness  or 
misery  while  their  bodies  are  decomposing  in 
the  grave  and  their  constituent  elements  are 
being  reabsorbed  and  worked  over  in  the  pro¬ 
cesses  of  Nature.  Then,  after  millions  of  aees 

D 

it  may  be,  these  happy  or  miserable  spirits  are  to 
return  to  the  earth,  to  be  reunited  to  the  bodies 
the  elements  of  which  have  been  mixed  and 
become  parts  of  innumerable  other  bodies,  hu¬ 
man  and  brutal,  to  be  judged  according  to  the 
deeds  done  in  the  body,  and  then  be  sent  away 
to  places  of  happiness  or  misery  for  ever — pre¬ 
sumably  to  the  same  heaven  or  hell  in  which 
they  have  already  lived  for  unnumbered  ages. 
Comment  is  useless. 

We  do  not  refer  to  this  unpleasant  aspect  of 


Does  Death  End  All? 


143 


orthodoxy  in  any  unkind  spirit,  and  the  painful 
task  would  not  be  performed  but  for  the  abiding 
conviction  that  the  prevailing  scepticism  of  the 
day  regarding  the  future  life  is  largely  charge¬ 
able  to  the  absurd  dogmas  of  all  branches  of 
the  so-called  evangelical  churches,  including 
also  the  Roman  Church. 

Before  closing  these  discussions  it  will  be 
shown  how  necessary  it  is  to  have  a  general 
revision  of  church  creeds,  and  how  easy  it  is 
to  substitute  a  more  rational  faith  without  giv- 
ing  up  one  single  principle  or  article  of  belief 
fundamental  to  true  religion  and  the  highest 
morality.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  our  liberal 
preachers  are  not  more  settled  and  outspoken 
on  the  question  of  the  future  life.  They  speak 
freely  of  the  hope  of  immortality,  and  often 
make  admissions  and  suggest  doubts  that  jus¬ 
tify  a  recent  description  of  them  as  “  sutlers 
that  trade  with  both  armies,”  and  as  “  not  be¬ 
lieving  in  hell,  and  having  but  faint  hopes  of 
heaven.”  We  have  too  much  from  liberal 
pulpits  of  diffidence  and  hesitation,  too  much 
that  is  “poetically  sentimental  and  floridly 
vague.”  “  Delightful  sermons  ”  and  “  scholarly 
essays  ”  and  “  aesthetic,  ethical  culture  ”  are 
very  common  expressions,  but,  while  seeking 
to  be  as  “  ecclesiastical  as  other  churches,” 


1 44  Man —  Whence  a7id  Whither  ? 


keeping  up  the  appearance  of  priestly  respect¬ 
ability  by  aping  the  “  regular  clergy  ”  and 
using  evangelical  terminology,  nibbling  at  the 
orthodox  cheese  and  seeking  orthodox  recog¬ 
nition  and  commendation,  it  is  questionable  in 
many  independent  minds  whether  they  are  not 
unwittingly  playing  into  the  hands  of  their 
enemies  and  doing  more  to  retard  robust, 
healthy  thinking  than  to  advance  it. 

If  at  this  late  period  of  Christian  and  relig¬ 
ious  culture  we  have  only  ground  to  hope  for  a 
future  life,  it  is  time  that  we  turn  to  science  for 
light,  and  to  those  for  instruction  who  profess 
to  have  received  “proof  palpable”  of  immor¬ 
tality. 

The  ethical  bearing  of  believing  or  not  believ¬ 
ing  in  a  future  existence  is  not  so  great  as  has 
been  supposed.  Many  noble  men  who  had  no 
faith  in  immortality  have  been  consecrated  to 
right-doing  and  unselfish  working  for  humanity. 
There  are  persons  who  do  right  for  the  sake  of 
the  right,  and  whose  motto  is, 

“  Is  there  no  second  life  ? 

Pitch  this  one  high.” 

Paul  was  on  a  low  plane  of  morality  when  he 
said,  “If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope  in  Christ, 
we  are  of  all  men  most  miserable.  ...  If  after 
the  manner  of  men  I  have  fought  with  beasts  at 


Does  Death  End  All? 


145 


Ephesus,  what  advantageth  me  if  the  dead  rise 
not?  Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we 
die.”  Martin  Luther  and  several  of  his  coad¬ 
jutors  and  successors  thought  that  a  life  of 
licentiousness  was  the  natural  outcome  of  dis¬ 
belief  in  a  future  existence ;  and  even  Dr. 
Chalmers  wrote :  “  If  there  be  no  future  life, 
the  moral  constitution  of  man  is  stripped  of  its 
significaticy,  and  the  Author  of  that  constitution 
is  stripped  of  his  wisdom  and  authority  and 
honor.”  This  is  a  mistaken  idea.  If  life  is 
so  soon  to  terminate,  there  is  reason  for  making 
the  most  and  the  best  of  it.  Virtue  has  an 
essential  excellence  and  a  present  reward.  Self¬ 
ishness  and  vice  are  degrading  now ,  and  bring 
sorrow  and  suffering  as  a  consequence  both  to 
the  wrong-doer  and  others.  And  yet  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  while  belief  in  the  future  life 
imposes  no  additional  moral  obligation  to  duty, 
yet  a  firm  faith  in  a  future  state  has  a  most  salu¬ 
tary  influence.  It  ennobles  man,  increases  his 
self-esteem  and  self-respect,  and  “sheds  an  addi¬ 
tional  radiance  upon  the  dim  lights  of  life,  gives 
new  motives  to  those  which  already  stimulate 
us,  pours  sweet  comfort  into  desponding  hearts, 
hallows  precious  memories  of  those  dear  ones 
who  have  gone  before,  and  furnishes  an  abiding 
inspiration  for  every  high  and  manly  purpose 
and  endeavor.”  We  rather  commiserate  than 


10 


146  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


censure  those  who  have  no  hope  of  immor¬ 
tality. 

It  has  not  been  our  object  in  this  chapter  to 
present  the  proof  of  a  future  life,  but  rather  to 
show  that  there  is  no  good  reason  for  denying 
it,  and  to  clear  the  way  for  a  more  direct  pres¬ 
entation  of  the  evidence  upon  which  faith  in  the 
future  is  founded. 

The  following  translation  of  the  speech  of 
Cato  will  make  a  fitting  close  of  our  present 
meditations : 

“  It  must  be  so.  Plato,  thou  reasonest  well. 

Else  whence  this  pleasing  hope,  this  fond  desire, 

This  longing  after  immortality  ? 

Or  whence  this  secret  dread  and  inward  horror 
Of  falling  into  naught  ?  Why  shrinks  the  soul 
Back  on  herself,  and  startles  at  destruction  ? 

’Tis  the  divinity  that  stirs  within  us: 

’Tis  Heaven  itself  that  points  out  an  hereafter, 

And  intimates  eternity  to  man. 

Eternity  !  thou  pleasing,  dreadful  thought ! 

Through  what  variety  of  untried  being, 

Through  what  new  scenes  and  changes,  must  we  pass ! 
The  wide,  the  unbounded,  prospect  lies  before  me ; 

But  shadows,  clouds  and  darkness  rest  upon  it. 

Here  will  I  hold :  If  there’s  a  Power  above  us 
(And  that  there  is  all  Nature  cries  aloud 
Through  all  her  works),  he  must  delight  in  virtue; 

And  that  which  he  delights  in  must  be  happy. 

But  when,  or  where  ? 

I’m  weary  of  conjectures  :  this  must  end  them. 

Thus  am  I  doubly  armed :  my  death  and  life — 

My  bane  and  antidote — are  both  before  me. 


Does  Death  End  All? 


147 


This,  in  a  moment,  brings  me  to  an  end ; 

But  this  informs  me  I  shall  never  die. 

The  soul,  secure  in  her  existence,  smiles 
At  the  drawn  dagger,  and  defies  its  point. 

The  stars  shall  fade  away,  the  sun  himself 
Grow  dim  with  age,  and  Nature  sink  in  years ; 
But  thou  shalt  flourish  in  immortal  youth — 
Unhurt  amidst  the  war  of  elements, 

The  wreck  of  matter  and  the  crush  of  worlds.” 


VI. 


THE  FOUNDATION  OF  FAITH  IN  A  FUTURE  LIFE. 


HERE  never  has  been  a  time  when  faith  in 


the  immortality  of  man  was  so  general,  and 
yet  there  never  was  a  time  when  the  denial  of 
this  doctrine  was  so  bold,  as  at  the  present  day. 
The  hypothesis  of  man’s  descent  from  inferior 
animals,  and  certain  physiological  and  biological 
theories  regarding  the  dependence  of  man’s  men¬ 
tality  upon  his  physical  organism,  lie  at  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  materialistic  scepticism.  But  it  has 
not  been  proved  that  man  is  a  descendant  of  a 
brute,  nor  that  brutes  have  not  a  capacity  for 
continued  existence,  nor  that  such  capacity  may 
not  hereafter  be  developed  in  brutes,  nor  that  an 
immortal  man  could  not  have  been  developed 
from  a  mortal  animal.  When  we  consider  the 
millions  of  years  that  have  been  employed  in 
bringing  man  to  his  present  high  estate,  it  is 
rational  to  assume  that  a  capacity  for  such  im¬ 
mense  progress  is  good  ground  for  faith  in  still 
greater  progress,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  end 
to  the  advancement  and  attainments  of  human- 


148 


149 


Proof  Palpable. 

ity.  If  primitive  man  was  not  immortal,  there 
may  have  been  a  time  when  he  became  immor¬ 
tal,  just  as  there  is  a  time  when  the  embryo 
becomes  a  conscious,  breathing  babe  and  when 
the  undeveloped  child  begins  to  exercise  the 
functions  of  rationality  and  becomes  an  account¬ 
able  being.  It  is  not  true  that  even  the  extreme 
Darwinian  doctrine  is  necessarily  opposed  to  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  life  for  man.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  its  fundamental  principles  suggest  the  hy¬ 
pothesis  of  immortality. 

If  the  “  conservation  of  energy  ”  is  a  true 
principle  of  science,  it  favors  the  faith  of  man 
in  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life.  Greatness  and 
goodness  developed  in  man  must  be  “con¬ 
served,”  and  how  can  it  be  done  if  death  is  a 
destroyer?  The  total  annihilation  of  some  men 
at  least  is  a  proposition  incapable  of  being 
thought.  The  “  persistency  of  force  ”  in  the 
human  personality  must  at  least  be  equal  to 
the  primary  elements  which  environ  that  per¬ 
sonality.  Is  it  rational  to  suppose  that  the 
sweep  of  evolution  which  has  brought  man 
from  such  unfathomable  depths  will  not  carry 
him  up  to  still  more  illimitable  heights?  Are 
these  vast  achievements  of  Nature  to  be  so 
unthriftily  wasted  ?  Do  not  the  products  of  a 
past  eternity  point  unmistakably  to  still  greater 
things  in  an  eternity  to  come? 


150  Man — Whence  and  Whither ? 


And  then  does  not  the  scientific  doctrine  of 
the  “  indestructibility  of  matter  ”  favor  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  life  after  death?  It  is  common  to  speak 
of  the  soul  of  man  as  immaterial,  but  what  do 
we  know  of  the  difference  between  the  material 
and  the  immaterial  ?  Who  has  ever  succeeded 
in  drawing  the  dividing-line  ?  Who  can  ever 
say  this  is  material  and  that  immaterial,  when 
the  profoundest  philosopher  acknowledges  that 
he  does  not  even  pretend  to  know  what  matter 
is?  We  might  say  that  the  atmosphere  in 
which  we  live  is  immaterial,  because  we  cannot 
subject  it  to  the  test  of  some  of  our  senses ; 
but  we  find  by  scientific  experiment  that  it  is 
as  material  as  iron  or  granite,  and  that  its  pres¬ 
sure  upon  an  ordinary  man  is  about  fifteen  tons. 
As  we  leave  the  surface  of  the  earth  it  becomes 
more  and  more  rarefied,  until  we  find  a  “  lumin¬ 
iferous  ether,”  compared  to  which  the  air  we 
breathe  is  as  mud  or  tar. 

The  time  will  probably  come  when  acute 
analytical  minds  will  not  attempt  any  distinc¬ 
tion  between  the  material  and  the  spiritual,  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural.  That  there  is  a 
close  connection  between  even  gross  matter  and 
the  intellectual  and  emotional  nature  of  man  is 
seen  in  the  clouded  brow  of  perplexed  intellect, 
in  the  witching  light  of  a  lover’s  eye,  and  in  the 
crimson  blush  that  mantles  the  maiden’s  cheek. 


Proof  Palpable.  I5I 

The  internal  man  often  photographs  his  spiritual 
features  upon  the  rough  exterior  of  the  physical 
encasement. 

The  theory  of  “natural  selection”  also  favors 
the  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  and  never  appears 
so  real  and  so  beautiful  as  when  we  realize  that 
as  man  progresses  in  everything  that  is  giand 
and  good  he  voluntarily  falls  in  with  this  natural 
law,  and  of  choice  not  only  selects  that  which 
is  most  to  be  desired,  but  by  self-denial  and 
almost  superhuman  exertions  strives  to  attain 
the  highest  ideal  of  his  heavenly  aspirations. 
The  unwearied  effort  of  the  most  highly-devel¬ 
oped  men  to  reach  a  higher  perfection  and  a 
more  exalted  excellence  is  evidence  that  Nature 
is  true  to  herself,  and  that  man  will  not  be 
blotted  out  of  conscious  existence  just  as  he 
first  clearly  perceives  the  essential  diffeience 
between  good  and  evil.  Having  tasted  the 
fruit  of  the  tree  of  life,  he  is  destined  to  live 

for  ever. 

It  is  certainly  a  significant  fact  that  the  faith 
of  man  in,  and  a  desire  for,  a  future  life  are 
strongest  in  his  moments  of  greatest  mental 
and  spiritual  exaltation.  If  this  is  an  illusion, 
it  is  strange  that  it  should  be  particularly  vivid 
when  he  is  in  his  most  god-like  moods  and 
when  he  is  most  in  love  with  the  beautiful,  the 
true  and  the  good.  Is  it  possible  for  Nature  to 


152  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

thus  trifle  with  and  deceive  and  disappoint  man 
when  he  is  most  serious  and  truthful,  and  when 
all  the  elements  of  his  better  nature  are  in  the 
ascendant  and  predominate  over  everything  that 
is  gross  and  perishing  ?  There  are  times  when 
every  man  is  glad  to  be  alive,  and  so  there  are 
times  when  men  specially  desire  immortal  life. 
When  crowned  by  the  delights  of  his  home; 
when  contemplating  the  wonders  and  beauties 
of  Nature  from  mountain-top  or  seaside,  look¬ 
ing  up  into  the  blue  sky  at  noonday  or  into  the 
deep  vault  of  celestial  splendor  in  the  calm 
silence  of  midnight ;  when  contemplating  a 
gieat  work  of  art,  or  when  overwhelmed  with 
the  harmonious  strains  of  classic  music, — man 
feels  more  distinctly  than  he  can  ever  express 
that  he  is  not  a  mere  insensate  clod  about  to 
drop  into  everlasting  nothingness. 

Too  little  has  been  made  of  human  intuitions, 
of  the  primitive  conscious  personality  that  exists 
with  more  or  less  force  in  nearly  all  men.  When 
we  point  to  the  fact  that  men  in  all  ages  and  in 
all  climes  have  generally  believed  in  and  desired 
immortality,  we  are  told  that  men  have  for  ages 
believed  in  what  was  false,  that  the  general 
picvalence  of  a  belief  is  no  evidence  of  its 
truthfulness,  that  until  a  comparatively  recent 
period  all  men  believed  this  earth  to  be  flat 
and  that  the  sun  moved  around  it  once  in 


■ 


Proof  Palpable.  1 5  3 

twenty-four  hours.  This  is  true,  but  was  this 
belief  an  intuition,  an  abiding  sentiment,  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  men  have  passionately 
clung  to  their  faith  in  immortality?  Was 
belief  in  the  Ptolemaic  system  of  astronomy 
innate ,  or  was  it  not  rather  want  of  information 
upon  a  subject  of  which  they  knew  little  and 

cared  less  ? 

Then  we  are  told  that  men  generally  desire 
to  be  rich,  and  that  this  and  many  other  natural 
desires  are  never  gratified.  But  men  would  not 
desire  riches  if  there  was  no  such  thing.  Men 
do  not  desire  and  hope  for  the  impossible. 
Carefully  analyze  human  desires,  passions  and 
hopes,  and  see  if  they  do  not  all  relate  to  the 
real,  to  something  that  corresponds  and  answeis 
to  the  desire,  passion  or  hope.  The  faculties 
of  spirituality,  reverence  and  veneration  are  as 
really  part  of  the  human  personality  as  acquis¬ 
itiveness  and  philoprogenitiveness ;  and  the  love 
of  life  and  of  continuous  existence  is  even 
stronger  than  the  love  of  money.  Has  the 
God  of  Nature  given  these  faculties  to  man 
to  mislead  and  disappoint  him? 

There  is  that  in  man  which  tells  him  that  he 
is  something  more  than  flesh  and  blood  that 
the  body  is  a  creature  and  servant  of  his  will. 
He  says,  I  am,  I  think,  I  reason,  I  love  and 
hate,  /move  my  hand  at  pleasure.  /  see  you. 


i 


154  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

Mine  eyes  are  my  lenses,  but  the  seer  is  greater 
than  the  instrument  of  sight,  the  hearer  is 
greater  than  the  organ  of  hearing.  You  may 
put  out  my  external  eyes,  you  may  destroy 
my  external  ears,  and  destroy  my  sense  of 
taste,  smell  and  feeling ;  and  /  still  exist.  It 
is  rational  to  conclude  that  the  existence  of  a 
sense  proves  the  existence  of  that  which  an¬ 
swers  to  it,  and  as  man  has  an  innate  sense  of 
a  Supreme  Power,  and  of  his  own  spirituality 
and  superiority  to  mere  matter,  and  an  intuitive 
consciousness  and  longing  for  the  continuity 
of  life,  these  things  must  be  realities.  Dr. 
James  E.  Garretson  has  laid  down  the  premise, 
and  ably  maintains  it,  that  “A  thing  is  to  the 
sense  that  cognizes  it  what  to  that  sense  it  seems 
to  be."  All  the  scientific  twaddle  about  ancient 
fetichism  and  inherited  faiths  from  early  ances¬ 
tors,  and  other  baseless  assumptions,  can  never 
shake  the  innate  convictions  and  immortal  hopes 
of  mankind.  These  are  constituents  of  his  very 
nature,  and  are  therefore  ineradicable. 

Then  every  cultivated  man  realizes  as  age 
increases  that  his  attainments  and  successes  in 
this  ephemeral  life  fall  far  short  of,  and  are 
absolutely  inadequate  and  disproportionate  to, 
his  inherent  powers ;  and  it  is  irrational  to  con¬ 
clude  that  his  very  existence  is  to  be  blotted 
out  and  life  itself  become  utterly  extinct  just 


Proof  Palpable.  155 

as  he  has  learned  how  to  live,  what  life  is  and 
what  is  his  “  being’s  end  and  aim.” 

A  future  life  and  an  immortal  one  must  exist 
to  enable  man  to  reach  that  perfection  to  which 
he  aspires,  and  feels  himself  bound  to  attain  as 
the  only  end  worthy  of  his  being,  and  which, 
during  the  brief  span  of  mortal  life,  is  never 
reached  even  by  the  most  virtuous.  Nature 
cannot  be  so  blind,  so  stupidly  improvident,  as 
to  throw  away  her  most  precious  treasures, 
gathered  by  so  much  labor  and  suffering,  and 
not  permit  man  to  carry  forward  the  great  work, 
in  which  he  has  just  begun  to  succeed,  to  that 
perfection  to  which  all  his  aspirations  unmis¬ 
takably  converge. 

These  and  similar  suggestions  might  be  in¬ 
definitely  elaborated  ;  we  only  present  them  as 
speculative,  but  as  affording,  nevertheless,  strong 
circumstantial  evidence  of  the  truthfulness  of 
the  doctrine  of  a  future  life. 

And  here  it  should  be  premised  that  the  in¬ 
herent,  absolute  immortality  of  all  men  does 
not  follow  even  if  we  are  persuaded  that  some 
men  have  a  future  existence,  nor  is  immortality 
a  necessary  corollary  of  a  future  life.  Man  may 
live  after  death,  and  yet  not  live  for  ever,  and 
there  may  be  men  so  low  in  the  scale  of  being 
as  to  drop  into  nothingness  when  their  mortal 


1 5  6  Man —  Whence  arid  Whither  ? 

bodies  dissolve.  The  New  Testament  seems  to 
favor  the  hypothesis  of  conditional  future  life, 
an  immortality  to  be  sought  after  (Rom.  2  :  7). 
A  sect  of  Christians  of  considerable  numbers 
hold  this  view,  and  maintain  it  with  great  plau¬ 
sibility.  It  is  said  of  God  that  he  “  only  hath 
immortality,”  by  which  is  understood  inherent 
or  essential  immortality  (1  Tim.  6  :  16). 

The  object  of  our  first  essay  and  of  the  imme¬ 
diately  preceding  one  was  to  show  that  there  is 
nothing  irrational  or  unscientific  in  the  doctrine 
pf  a  future  life — that  very  many  things  conspire 
to  justify  the  hope,  the  expectation,  and  even 
belief,  in  it.  But  we  do  not  stop  here.  There 
is  proof  positive  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  doc¬ 
trine,  and  to  this  we  now  give  attention. 

Materialists  and  agnostics  so  confidently  assert 
that  no  palpable  evidence  has  ever  been  given 
of  the  survival  of  man  after  death  that  many 
persons  accept  the  declaration  without  exam¬ 
ination.  And  yet  the  literature  of  the  world 
shows  that  men  in  all  ages  and  countries  have 
not  only  believed  this  doctrine,  but  that  their 
faith  arose  from  what  they  regarded  as  proof 
palpable  of  the  actual  existence  of  man  after 
death.  They  did  not  believe  that  men  appeared 
after  death  because  they  believed  in  a  future 
life,  but,  on  the  contrary,  their  faith  in  the  future 
life  has  always  been  based  upon  the  conviction 


i57 


Proof  Palpable . 

that  they  have  had  satisfactory  proof  of  the 
reappearance  of  some  men  who  had  been  re¬ 
moved  by  death. 

With  intelligent  persons  we  hazard  nothing  in 
affirming  that  human  apparitions  after  death,  and 
the  intercourse  and  communion  of  disembodied 
spirits  with  their  friends  who  survive  them,  have 
been  generally  accepted  as  true  by  all  peoples 
in  all  times.  Whole  volumes  might  be  filled 
with  proofs  of  this  allegation  from  ancient 
Buddhistic,  Egyptian,  Grecian,  Roman  and 
other  writings  of  antiquity.  But  as  the  He¬ 
brew  and  Christian  Scriptures  are  naturally 
held  in  high  repute  throughout  Christendom, 
we  begin  with  them.  One  will  first  readily 
think  of  Samuel  and  the  woman  of  Endor, 
commonly  called  a  “  witch,”  but  not  so  called 
in  the  record  (i  Sam.  28).  It  is  not  necessary 
to  give  details.  A  dead  man  appeared  after 
death,  and  “  Saul  perceived  it  was  Samuel.” 
This  has  long  been  regarded  by  theologians 
as  proof  of  man’s  real  existence  after  death. 
The  learned  Methodist  commentator  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke  makes  the  following  points  on  this  case : 

“  I  believe  there  is  a  supernatural  and  spiritual  world 
in  which  human  spirits,  both  good  and  bad,  live  in  a 
state  of  consciousness.  ...  I  believe  that  any  of  these 
spirits  may  .  .  .  have  intercourse  with  this  world  and  be¬ 
come  visible  to  mortals.” 


158  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

Richard  Watson,  the  standard  theological  au¬ 
thority  with  Methodists  the  world  over,  referring 
to  this  same  case,  says : 

“It  answers  all  the  objections  which  were  ever  raised, 
or  can  be  raised  from  the  philosophy  of  the  case,  against 
the  possibility  of  the  appearance  of  departed  spirits.” 

In  the  New  Testament  the  one  great  case  is 
the  Transfiguration  scene  recorded  in  Matt.  17  : 
1-4.  Moses  had  been  dead  about  fifteen  hun¬ 
dred  years  and  Elias  more  than  nine  hundred 
years,  yet  they  are  both  said  to  have  appeared 
and  talked  with  Jesus,  Peter,  James  and  John. 
The  alleged  appearances  of  Jesus  after  his 
death  are  also  to  be  considered,  and  also  the 
apparition  of  a  departed  human  being  to  John 
on  the  isle  of  Patmos  (Rev.  22  :  9). 

These  cases  are  introduced  to  show  that  the 
Christian  Church  has  been  perfectly  consistent 
in  holding  the  doctrine  of  the  occasional  return 
to  this  world  of  human  beings  after  death,  and 
of  intercourse  between  this  world  and  the  in¬ 
visible  world,  and  the  guardian  care  and  minis¬ 
trations  of  glorified  human  beings  over  and 
toward  those  who  are '  still  in  the  flesh.  In 
the  Apostles’  Creed  (so  called),  recited  in  thou¬ 
sands  of  churches  every  Sunday,  it  is  declared, 
I  believe  “  in  the  communion  of  saints that  is, 
in  the  doctrine  of  intercourse  between  saints  in 


1 59 


Proof  Palpable. 

heaven  and  saints  on  earth.  This  ancient  creed 
was  so  understood  and  expounded  in  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  homilies  of  early  times,  whatever  may 
now  be  thought  of  it.  No  wonder  that  Me- 
lanchthon,  the  scholar  of  the  Reformation, 
says :  “  I  have  myself  seen  spirits,  and  I 
know  many  trustworthy  persons  who  affirm 
that  they  have  not  only  seen  them,  but  carried 
on  conversations  with  them.”  Luther’s  works 
are  full  of  such  things,  and  even  Calvin  and 
Knox  believed  in  them.  The  celebrated  Ober- 
lin  became  a  reluctant  but  sound  convert  to  the 
doctrine,  and  in  his  Memoirs  it  is  declared  that 
“  for  nine  years  he  had  constant  interviews  with 
his  deceased  wife.”  John  Wesley,  the  founder 
of  the  Methodist  Church,  gave  great  prominence 
in  his  writings  and  preaching  to  his  belief  in  the 
occasional  return  of  departed  human  spirits. 
He  gives  a  great  many  examples  from  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  others  in  whom  he  had  confidence, 
and  professes  to  have  seen  three  departed  spirits 
himself.  In  each  instance  the  apparition  was 
followed  by  the  news  of  the  death  of  the  per¬ 
son  at  the  precise  time  of  the  appearance  to 
him.  Commenting  on  one  whose  death  oc¬ 
curred  in  Jamaica,  Mr.  Wesley  remarks :  “  So 
a  spirit  finds  no  difficulty  in  travelling  three  or 
four  thousand  miles  in  a  moment.”  The  pecu¬ 
liar  and  well-attested  supersensuous  experiences 


1 60  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

in  the  Wesley  family  are  too  well  known  to  need 
special  mention,  as  they  have  been  fully  set  forth 
by  the  poet  Southey  and  other  writers  of  literary 
renown.  It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  these 
examples  indefinitely  from  the  writings  of  the 
most  distinguished  Christian  writers  of  all  de¬ 
nominations  from  the  days  of  St.  Augustine  to 
the  present  time,  to  show  that  it  has  always 
been  the  faith  of  the  Christian  Church,  not  only 
that  men  live  after  death,  but  that  they  some¬ 
times  return  to  this  earth  and  in  divers  ways 
make  themselves  sensibly  known  to  their  sur¬ 
viving  friends. 

It  may  be  said  that  theologians  and  religion¬ 
ists  are  generally  credulous,  inclined  to  be  su¬ 
perstitious  and  to  take  things  for  granted,  and 
we  are  reminded  that  some  of  these  men  be¬ 
lieved  in  witchcraft,  and  that  even  Blackstone 
and  Sir  Matthew  Hale  of  England  and  the  civil 
authorities  of  Massachusetts  had  acknowledged 
their,  faith  in  that  delusion.  We  shall  not  here 
be  drawn  aside  into  the  discussion  of  witchcraft, 
but  shall  dismiss  that  subject  with  the  single 
remark  that  the  phenomena  called  witchcraft 
undoubtedly  occurred,  and  that  the  only  ration¬ 
al  explanation  that  has  ever  been  given  of  them 
is  based  upon  the  philosophy  of  the  continuity 
of  human  life  and  the  occasional  interference  of 
disembodied  spirits  with  the  affairs  of  this  mun- 


Proof  Palpable.  1 6 1 

dane  sphere.  This  explanation  has  been  ably 
set  forth  by  Mr.  Allen  Putnam,  a  well-known 
Boston  lawyer,  in  his  book  on  Salem  Witch - 
.i craft . 

Fortunately,  the  investigation  of  the  question 
whether  men  ever  return  after  death  has  not 
been  confined  to  theologians  and  pietists.  For 
the  last  third  of  a  century  this  subject  has  ex¬ 
cited  almost  universal  attention  and  discussion, 
and  there  is  no  subject  upon  which  literature  is 
more  voluminous.  Gentlemen  of  leisure  and 
varied  accomplishments,  as  well  as  many  of  the 
most  profound  scientists,  have  devoted  them¬ 
selves  untiringly  to  an  examination  of  the  ques¬ 
tion  whether  evidence  which  can  be  cognized  by 
our  ordinary  senses  exists  to  prove  beyond  a 
doubt  that  the  human  Ego  survives  the  change 
called  death.  The  experience  of  one  investi¬ 
gator,  whose  name  is  seldom  heard,  is  so 
wonderful  that  we  shall  here  introduce  it.  In 
1873,  Baron  Louis  Guldenstubbe  died  in  Paris 
in  his  fifty-third  year.  He  was  of  an  ancient 
Swedish  family,  a  man  of  independent  fortune 
and  of  varied  learning,  an  excellent  Hebrew 
scholar  and  a  diligent  student  of  occult  science. 
He  was  personally  known  to  the  Rev.  William 
Mountford  of  Boston  and  to  more  than  one  of 
our  American  representatives  at  foreign  courts. 
He  was  a  devout  man,  and  made  it  the  great 
11 


1 62  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


object  of  his  life  to  get  an  incontrovertible  dem¬ 
onstration  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  In 
1857  he  published  a  book  in  Paris  giving  the 
results  of  his  investigations.  In  August,  1856, 
after  earnest  prayer  and  only  known  to  himself, 
he  placed  pencil  and  paper  in  a  locked  box. 
He  waited  twelve  days  in  vain.  Then  he 
noticed  mysterious  words  upon  the  paper, 
which  occurred  ten  times  on  that  memorable 
day,  August  13,  1856.  He  soon  discovered 
that  his  pencil  was  not  used  in  the  writing,  and 
so  removed  it,  and  merely  placed  a  blank  sheet 
of  paper  upon  his  table,  on  the  pedestal  of  an 
old  statue  or  in  an  urn  in  some  old  cathedral. 
After  getting  many  intelligent  written  communi¬ 
cations  from  an  invisible  source,  he  confided  the 
secret  to  his  friend  Count  d’Ourches,  who  soon 
witnessed  the  phenomenon  of  independent  writ¬ 
ing  by  an  unseen  hand,  and  became  convinced 
of  its  reality.  In  October  the  count  himself 
thus  received,  when  the  baron  was  not  present, 
what  purported  to  be  a  message  from  his  mother, 
who  had  been  dead  twenty  years.  On  the  fourth 
of  that  month  (1856)  the  Scripture  verse,  “O 
death,  where  is  thy  sting?  O  grave,  where  is 
thy  victory  ?”  was  written  in  Greek  by  an  in¬ 
visible  power  in  the  presence  of  the  baron,  the 
count  and  Dr.  Georgii.  Fac-similes,  sixty-seven 
in  number  (including  this  one),  are  reproduced 


Proof  Palpable .  163 

in  the  baron’s  book,  and  the  names  of  many 
gentlemen  of  noble  rank  and  high  scientific  at¬ 
tainments  are  given  who  at  different  times  wit¬ 
nessed  these  strange  phenomena.  The  baron 
says  : 

“  To-day,  in  moral  concerns  as  well  as  in  the  exact  sci¬ 
ences,  our  age  demands  facts,  and  here  we  give  them  in 
abundance.  More  than  five  hundred  experiences  have 
been  had  since  the  memorable  13th  of  August,  1856,  by 
the  author  and  his  two  friends,  Count  d’Ourches  and 
Gen.  Baron  de  Brewern.  More  than  fifty  persons,  sup¬ 
plying  their  own  paper,  have  been  enabled  to  verify  the 
astonishing  phenomenon  of  direct  writing  by  invisible  in¬ 
telligences.” 

At  one  time  the  baron  was  in  a  gallery  at  Ver¬ 
sailles,  and  the  bishop  of  Orleans  passed  through 
on  his  way  to  say  mass.  Shaking  hands  with 
the  baron,  the  bishop  reproached  him  with  en¬ 
couraging  a  delusion  antagonistic  to  the  Church, 
and  said  that  Luther  was  suffering  in  purgatory. 
The  baron  told  the  bishop  that  if  he  would  place 
a  piece  of  paper  over  the  portrait  of  Luther  he 
would  get  evidence  that  Luther  is  not  in  hell. 
The  bishop  tore  a  slip  from  his  note-book  and 
placed  it  as  requested,  and,  soon  taking  it  down, 
he  found  written  upon  it  these  words: 

‘‘In  vita  pestis  eram  papas, 

In  morte  mors  ero. — Luther.” 

A  free  translation  reads  thus :  “  Living,  I  was 


1 64  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

a  pest  to  the  pope ;  dead,  I  will  be  his  death.” 
The  bishop  frequently  after  this  visited  the  baron 
in  Paris. 

We  have  introduced  this  particular  case  be¬ 
cause  of  the  high  character  and  social  position 
of  the  baron  and  his  immediate  friends  who 
bear  testimony  to  the  truth  of  his  statements, 
and  because  no  suspicious  circumstances  exist. 
There  was  no  professional  intermediary  in  the 
case ;  no  sensitive  or  psychic,  unless  the  baron 
was  such  himself;  no  money  to  be  made,  no 
honor  to  be  gained  from  the  fashionable  world, 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  doubt  and  suspicion 
were  sure  to  come.  Were  Baron  Guldenstubbe 
and  his  numerous  honorable  and  scientific 
friends,  who  verify  his  statements,  dishonest, 
or  were  they  all  deluded  and  deceived?  Did 
writing  appear  from  invisible  intelligences 
professing  to  be  human  beings  whose  bodies 
were  known  to  be  dead  ?  Is  human  testimony 
of  any  value  ? 

Were  these  the  only  examples  there  might  be 
some  reason  for  scepticism  and  disbelief,  but  a 
large  number  of  the  most  thoroughly  scientific 
men  upon  the  continent  of  Europe  have  given 
similar  testimonies.  We  will  take  the  published 
account  of  the  well-known  Boston  lecturer,  Rev. 
Joseph  Cook,  of  certain  matters  in  Germany. 
He  says : 


Proof  Palpable.  165 

“A  professor  of  Leipsic  University  buys  a  book-slate 
himself,  and  ties  it  up,  or  locks  it,  or  screws  it  together, 
first  having  cleansed  it  and  carefully  removed  any  chem¬ 
ical  preparation  upon  it.  He  does  not  let  it  go  out  of  his 
hands  during  the  experiment.  It  is  watched  by  men  of 
trained  habits  of  observation,  while  writing  appears  upon 
its  interior  surface.  An  elaborate  scientific  work  (  Tran¬ 
scendental  Physics ,  by  Professor  Zollner)  from  the  fore¬ 
most  university  of  the  world  contains  plates  illustrating 
writing  produced  in  this  manner.  .  .  .  Very  often  the 
subject-matter  of  the  writing  found  on  the  slates  is  be¬ 
yond  the  knowledge  of  the  psychic.  Greek  has  been 
found  written  upon  slates,  and  found  to  be  accurate, 
when  the  psychic  knew  nothing  of  the  language.  It  is 
thought  by  Zollner  and  his  associates  to  be  demonstrably 
impossible  to  produce  these  results  by  fraud.  .  .  .  Zollner 
undertakes  to  face  all  Germany  with  experiments  like 
these.  He  affirms  that  Weber,  Fechner  and  Scheibner 
agree  with  him,  and  Leipsic  University  keeps  him  in  his 
place.  .  .  .  Here  is  the  court  conjurer  who  says  he  can 
do  nothing  of  the  kind.” 

Fichte,  the  renowned  son  of  the  renowned  as¬ 
sociate  of  Kant,  confirms  Zollner,  and  proclaims 
‘‘the  ratification  of  the  belief  in  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  by  means  of  the  evidence  of  psychical 
experience.”  He  says  he  could,  if  authorized, 
give  the  names  of  many  learned  men  in  Ger¬ 
many  who  have  been  convinced  by  these  phe¬ 
nomena. 

It  would  be  easy  to  fill  pages  with  the  names 
and  titles  of  distinguished  men  of  learning  who 
have  been  convinced  by  psychic  and  psychical 
phenomena  of  the  existence  of  an  intelligence 


1 66  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

independent  of  the  human  organism,  and  which 
there  is  good  reason  to  believe  survives  bodily 
dissolution. 

In  sober,  conservative  England  not  a  few  of 
the  nobility,  as  well  as  men  of  science,  have 
been  convinced  of  the  immortal  nature  of  man 
by  well-known  phenomena.  Alfred  R.  Wallace, 
F.  R.  S.,  the  coadjutor,  and  in  some  respects  the 
superior,  of  Charles  Darwin,  gives  detailed  ac¬ 
counts  of  many  experiments  made  by  him  under 
the  most  exhaustive  tests,  and  from  evidence 
thus  obtained  he  is  a  most  earnest  believer  in 
the  future  life  of  man.  The  same  is  true  of 
Dr.  William  Crookes,  F.  R.  S.,  who  has  made 
many  valuable  discoveries  in  science,  and  is 
well  known  to  men  of  learning  throughout  the 
world  as  a  most  exact  and  thorough  scholar. 
Then  there  is  Cromwell  F.  Varley,  also  F.  R.  S., 
the  electrician  of  the  Atlantic  cable,  immortal¬ 
ized  for  his  skill  and  success  as  an  electrical 
engineer,  after  applying  mechanical  and  scien¬ 
tific  tests  to  what  professed  to  be  the  apparition 
of  a  deceased  human  being  was  fully  convinced 
that  there  was  no  deception  possible.  He  was 
for  many  years  frank  and  fearless  in  professing 
his  faith  in  the  continuance  of  life  after  death 
from  phenomena  witnessed  by  himself,  though 
he  had  commenced  his  experiments,  as  did  the 
late  learned  Professor  Hare  of  this  city,  for  the 


1 67 


Proof  Palpable . 

express  purpose  of  proving  the  contraiy.  Var- 
ley  recently  departed  in  full  faith  of  a  futuie  life, 
based  upon  his  convictions  that  he  had  evidence 
of  its  reality  by  objective  phenomena. 

In  these  United  States  there  are  scores  and 
hundreds  of  well-known  men — judges  upon  the 
bench  accustomed  to  weigh  evidence,  lawyers 
of  the  keenest  penetration,  physicians  of  the 
most  accurate  scientific  knowledge,  professors 
in  our  colleges,  bishops  in  their  sacred  vest¬ 
ments,  and  other  men  of  standing  trusted  in  all 
the  relations  of  social  life  and  business  pursuits 
—who  have  been  convinced,  by  what  they  have 
seen  and  heard,  that  men  survive  the  change 
called  death,  and  that  they  sometimes  give 
proof  of  their  continued  conscious  existence 
by  communicating  with  friends  who  mourn 
their  departure.  Those  who  desiie  details 
should  consult  Transcendental  Physics ,  by  I  ro- 
fessor  Zollner ;  Psycography ,  by  Rev.  W.  Stain- 
ton-Moses,  M.  A.,  of  the  University  College, 
London  ;  The  Scientific  Basis ,  by  Epes  Sargent, 
Esq.,  of  Boston;  Startling  Facts ,  by  Dr.  N.  B. 
Wolfe  of  Cincinnati ;  and  other  well-known 
publications. 

It  is  estimated  that  there  are  at  least  twenty 
millions  of  people  to-day  in  Christendom  who 
believe,  not  merely  in  a  speculative  way,  but  on 
phenomena  which  they  have  seen  or  which  are 


1 68  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


well  corroborated  by  trustworthy  witnesses,  that 
death  is  a  mere  transition,  and  that  those  who 
have  passed  away  do  sometimes  return  and 
make  themselves  known  in  divers  ways  to 
surviving-  friends.  It  is  a  most  singular  fact 
that  Christian  people,  whose  canonical  sacred 
Scriptures  and  patristic  writings  are  full  of  this 
doctrine,  are  the  most  sceptical  as  to  its  phe¬ 
nomenal  confirmation  in  these  later  times.  They 
are  ready  to  believe  on  hearsay  evidence,  per¬ 
petuated  by  anonymous  writers  who  wrote  cen¬ 
turies  ago  in  distant  lands,  while  they  steadfastly 
reject,  and  even  ridicule,  the  most  direct  evi¬ 
dence  by  living  eye-witnesses  of  the  present 
day.  There  is  no  doubt  that  much  of  the  mar¬ 
vellous  is  fraudulent,  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
there  are  no  genuine  phenomena  bearing  upon 
this  subject.  Spencer  has  somewhere  substan¬ 
tially  said  that  the  persistency  of  a  faith  is  gene¬ 
rally  in  proportion  to  its  truthfulness.  Every¬ 
where,  among  all  classes  of  people,  in  every 
country  upon  the  globe,  the  conviction  that  the 
dead  sometimes  return  prevails;  and  this  belief, 
which  has  prevailed  in  all  ages,  is  based  upon 
phenomena  that  cannot  be  accounted  for  upon 
any  principles  known  to  modern  science.  Some 
things  apparently  supersensuous  can  be  traced 
to  trickery  and  sleight-of-hand,  and  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  “  unconscious  cerebration 


Proof  Palpable.  1 69 

there  are  optical  illusions,  and  there  are  psy¬ 
chological  powers  of  which  little  is  known, 
such  as  “  mind-  reading ;”  but  these  will  not 
account  for  any  considerable  number  of  well- 
known  phenomena,  as,  for  instance,  where  the 
alleged  apparitions  are  seen  by  a  number  of 
persons  at  the  same  moment,  where  the  alleged 
facts  communicated  are  unknown  to  all  persons 
present  and  can  only  be  verified  after  months 
of  waiting  and  patient  investigation,  and  where 
messages  are  received  in  foreign  and  dead  lan¬ 
guages  which  only  expert  linguists  can  translate; 
of  which  there  are  many  cases. 

It  generally  requires  more  credulity  to  accept 
the  explanations  of  these  phenomena  which  are 
sometimes  offered  than  to  believe  that  they  are 
indeed  just  what  they  claim  to  be;  and  until 
science  shall  give  some  rational  solution  that 
shall  cover  all  the  phenomena,  it  is  reasonable  to 
conclude  that  at  least  some  of  them  may  be 
genuine. 

It  does  not  help  the  matter  if  we  assume  that 
these  strange  things  are  sometimes  produced  by 
the  will  or  psychological  power  of  the  psychic, 
were  such  a  hypothesis  even  justified  by  the 
facts.  If  man  hampered  by  flesh  and  bones 
can  produce  such  wonderful  results  independ¬ 
ent  of  material  environments,  how  much  more 
reasonable  is  it  to  conclude  that  he  can  more 


170  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 

freely  exercise  those  powers  when  released  from 
the  grossly  material  body !  If  man  can  in  life 
exercise  powers  outside  of  and  independent  of 
his  physical  form,  why  may  not  the  real  man  be 
somewhere  else  while  his  body  is  in  the  coffin 
or  in  the  grave?  Man  is  a  spirit,  and  it  is  not 
proper  to  argue  that  he  has  a  spirit.  He  is  now 
in  a  spirit-world;  Indeed,  there  is  none  other. 
There  are  ten  thousand  incontrovertible  facts 
which  conclusively  prove  that  man’s  conscious, 
intelligent  existence  by  no  means  depends  upon 
his  present  gross  bodily  organization. 

The  mechanical,  materialistic  theory  of  Hux¬ 
ley  and  Haeckel  has  been  for  ever  exploded  by 
the  demonstrations  of  Crookes  and  Zollner. 

No  man  is  worthy  of  the  name  of  “  scientist” 
who  does  not  form  his  conclusions  upon  demon¬ 
strated  facts  rather  than  upon  a-priori  assump¬ 
tions.  If  human  experience  and  testimony  are 
not  utterly  worthless,  then  phenomena  observed 
in  thousands  of  instances  and  under  the  most 
varied  circumstances  demonstrate  the  continuity 
of  human  life  after  death,  and  this  nineteenth 
century  will  be  distinguished  in  the  long  annals 
of  time  as  the  special  period  when  the  old  faith 
in  a  future  life  was  fully  established  on  a  strictly 
phenomenal  basis.  One  fact  is  worth  more  than 
a  thousand  miraculous  revelations,  and  facts 
bearing  upon  this  subject  are  as  numerous  and 


Proof  Palpable.  1 7 1 

as  palpable  as  any  other  facts  within  the  com¬ 
pass  of  human  knowledge. 

It  is  only  about  forty  years  ago  (Feb.  21,  1843) 
that  when  a  bill  was  before  our  American  Con¬ 
gress  appropriating  thirty  thousand  dollars  for 
experimental  tests  of  Morse’s  electro-magnetic 
telegraph,  Mr.  Cave  Johnson,  a  member  of  Con¬ 
gress  from  Tennessee,  a  renowned  lawyer  and 
judge,  and  afterward  a  member  of  the  Cabinet 
of  President  Polk,  ridiculed  the  proposed  ex¬ 
periments  of  the  devoted  Morse  by  offering  an 
amendment  that  one-half  of  the  appropriation 
should  be  given  to  a  showman  then  exhibiting 
mesmeric  experiments  in  Washington.  The 
amendment  was  decided  by  Speaker  White  to 
be  in  order,  and  twenty-two  honorable  members 
voted  for  it ;  those  opposed  were  not  counted. 
The  Hon.  Sam  Houston,  general,  governor  and 
ex-president  of  Texas,  and  afterward  United 
States  Senator,  proposed  that  Millensm  should 
also  have  a  share  in  the  appropriation  !  These 
wise  men  of  that  period  have  passed  away.  The 
name  of  Morse  is  immortal.  The  telegraph  en¬ 
circles  our  globe  and  traverses  the  depths  of 
the  oceans,  and  the  current  transactions  of  the 
world  are  brought  to  our  breakfast-tables  each 
morning  as  reliably  and  quickly  as  the  local 
news  of  our  own  city.  A  notable  thing  has 
also  since  happened.  At  least  one  of  the  most 


172  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 

distinguished  and  best-beloved  Presidents  of 
these  United  States  became,  from  phenomenal 
evidence,  a  firm  and  practical  believer  in  the  fact 
of  communication  between  human  beings  in  the 
invisible  world  and  the  denizens  of  this  earth  ; 
in  which  faith,  and  on  the  same  ground,  he  was 
corroborated  by  Senators  from  Ohio,  Michigan, 
Massachusetts  and  other  States,  and  by  other 
members  of  Congress  not  a  few.  It  would  be  safe 
to  predict  that  in  forty  years  from  this  time,  if 
not  sooner,  no  man  of  intelligence  will  doubt 
this  glorious  truth,  unless  he  is  so  thoroughly 
materialistic  and  deficient  in  spirituality  as  to 
be  constitutionally  incapable  of  appreciating 
truths  so  ethereal  and  sublime — just  as  there 
are  men  who,  because  of  color-blindness,  can 
see  no  difference  between  red  and  green,  and 
others  who,  because  of  their  deficiency  in  the 
faculty  of  tune,  cannot  distinguish  the  “Marseil¬ 
laise  Hymn”  from  “Hail,  Columbia!”  There 
is  a  spiritual  idiocy  as  well  as  moral  and  mental 
idiocy. 

Death  is  not  the  end  of  man,  and  multitudes 
are  just  as  well  convinced  of  the  fact  from  phe¬ 
nomenal  evidence  as  that  we  have  constant 
communication  with  those  on  the  other  side 
of  the  globe  by  the  electric  telegraph.  Facts 
are  stubborn,  and  the  gods  themselves  cannot 
destroy  them.  There  is  a  future  life  for  man 


Proof  Palpable.  173 

after  death,  and  those  who  will  honestly  seek  for 
the  proof  are  sure  to  find  it. 

“There  is  no  death !  The  stars  go  down 
To  rise  upon  some  fairer  shore, 

And,  bright  in  Heaven’s  jewelled  crown, 

They  shine  for  evermore. 

****** 

“There  is  no  death  !  An  angel  form 

Walks  o’er  the  earth  with  silent  tread ; 

He  bears  our  dear  loved  ones  away, 

And  then  we  call  them  dead . 

****** 

“But  ever  near  us,  though  unseen, 

The  dear  immortal  spirits  tread. 

For  all  the  boundless  universe 
Is  life — there  are  no  dead!" 


VII. 


AFTER  DEATH— WHAT?  THE  ANSWERS  OF 
THEOLOGY  AND  REASON. 

IF  the  continuity  of  human  life  is  not  broken 
by  the  incident  of  death,  the  question  of 
what  follows  the  funeral  becomes  one  of  most 
absorbing  interest.  We  see  the  body  cold  and 
inanimate,  and  because  of  its  tendency  to  speedy 
decomposition  we  are  forced  to  hurry  it  to  the 
noisome  sepulchre.  The  chair  at  the  table  is 
vacant.  The  well-known  footstep  is  no  longer 
heard,  but,  though  we  may  remove  from  com¬ 
mon  sight  the  vestments  that  would  be  constant 
reminders  of  our  bereavement,  the  eye  still  sees 
the  long-loved  form  and  the  ear  still  hears  the 
sweet  voice  of  the  lamented  one.  Then  what 
anxious  thoughts  perturb  the  aching  heart  that 
because  of  grief  almost  ceases  to  beat!  Where 
is  he  ?  Does  she  love  me  still  ?  Is  he  happy  or 
miserable?  Is  he  better  off?  How  does  she 
fare  ?  What  will  become  of  me  at  death  ? 

The  answers  that  have  been  given  to  these 
questionings  of  loving  hearts  are  very  numer- 

174 


i?5 


After  Death —  What  ? 

ous,  and  might  be  studied  with  interest  and 
profit;  but  at  present  we  must  confine  our 
thoughts  to  the  teachings  of  the  two  great 
religious  parties  of  Christendom — the  Roman 
Catholics  and  orthodox  Protestants.  In  many 
things  there  is  a  perfect  agreement  between 
these  theological  teachers.  They  agree  in  the 
belief  that  at  death  all  souls  enter  at  once  upon 
a  condition  of  happiness  or  misery,  and  that  after 
a  general  resurrection  and  a  final  judgment-day 
soul  and  body,  united,  will  enter  upon  an  eter¬ 
nal  state  of  bliss  ineffable  or  of  suffering  inde¬ 
scribable. 

It  would  require  volumes  to  give  in  detail  the 
various  conceptions  that  have  been  formed  of 
the  localities  of  heaven  and  hell.  But  it  is  a 
fact  that  the  views  entertained  by  both  Catholics 
and  Protestants  have  generally  been  extremely 
literal  and  materialistic.  Heaven  has  been  con¬ 
sidered  as  a  place,  a  local  habitation,  a  city.  Its 
attractions  have  generally  been  described  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  surroundings  and  prevailing  hopes  of 
the  aspirants,  and  consequently  their  conceptions 
have  been  as  diversified  as  the  conditions  of  hu¬ 
manity  on  earth.  Heaven  has  generally  been 
located  above ,  and  hell  belozv ,  but  since  science 
has  shown  us  that,  properly  speaking,  there  is 
no  above  or  below,  and  that  these  localities 
change  places,  so  that  what  is  above  to-day  is 


176  Man — Whence  and  Whither ? 


below  to-night,  and  that  what  is  above  in  China 
is  below  in  America,  these  attempts  to  locate  the 
future  habitation  of  man  are  rather  confusing. 
The  fact  is,  that  nothing  is  positively  known  of 
any  such  localities  as  heaven  and  hell. 

The  dominant  theology  teaches  that  all  men 
at  death  pass  immediately  to  a  place  either  of 
happiness  or  of  misery.  Even  the  sweet  singer 
of  Methodism,  Charles  Wesley,  could  take  his 
harp  and  thus  portray  the  immanent  fate  of  man: 

“  Lo  !  on  a  narrow  neck  of  land, 

’Twixt  two  unbounded  seas,  I  stand 
Secure,  insensible ; 

A  point  of  time,  a  moment’s  space, 

Removes  me  to  that  heavenly  place, 

Or  shuts  me  up  in  hell.” 

All  church-goers  are  familiar  with  the  poetic 
descriptions  that  are  given  in  pulpit  and  hymn- 
book  of  the  blessedness  of  glorified  saints  in 
heaven  and  of  the  various  sources  from  which 
they  derive  their  happiness.  There  is,  however, 
one  aspect  of  this  subject  of  which  little  is  said 
in  these  modern  humanitarian  times ;  and  that 
is  the  monstrous  conception  that  the  happiness 
of  the  saved  will  be  greatly  enhanced  by  their 
knowledge  of  the  misery  of  the  lost,  though 
their  dearest  friends  and  kindred  may  be  amone 
the  number  of  the  latter.  This  fiendish  doctrine 
was  not  only  exultingly  taught  by  Tertullian 


i?7 


After  Death — What ? 

and  other  early  Christian  Fathers,  but  by  many 
distinguished  divines  since  the  Lutheran  Ref¬ 
ormation.  Jeremy  Taylor,  D.  D.,  an  Episcopal 
English  theologian  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
wrote : 

“We  are  amazed  at  the  inhumanity  of  Phalaris,  who 
roasted  men  in  his  brazen  bull;  this  was  joy  in  respect 
of  that  fire  of  hell  which  penetrates  the  very  entrails 
without  consuming  them.”  .  .  .  “  Husbands  shall  see 
their  wives,  parents  shall  see  their  children,  tormented 
before  their  eyes ;”  .  .  .  “  the  bodies  of  the  damned 
shall  be  crowded  together  in  hell  like  grapes  in  a  wine¬ 
press,  which  press  one  another  until  they  burst.”  .  .  . 
“  Every  distinct  sense  and  organ  shall  be  assailed  with 
its  own  appropriate  and  most  exquisite  sufferings.” 

Theological  writings  of  the  last  and  the  early 
part  of  this  nineteenth  century  are  full  of  such 
diabolical  utterances.  Take  the  following  from 
the  pen  of  the  elder  Jonathan  Edwards,  D.  D., 
who  died  in  Princeton,  New  Jersey,  where  he 
had  just  been  called  as  the  college  president: 

“  The  view  of  the  misery  of  the  damned  will  double 
the  ardor  of  the  love  and  gratitude  of  the  saints  in 
heaven.  The  sight  of  hell-torments  will  exalt  the  hap¬ 
piness  of  the  saints  for  ever.  It  will  not  only  make  them 
more  sensible  of  the  greatness  and  freeness  of  the  grace 
of  God  in  their  happiness,  but  it  will  really  make  their 
happiness  the  greater,  as  it  will  make  them  more  sensible 
of  their  own  happiness ;  it  will  give  them  a  more  lively 
relish  of  it ;  it  will  make  them  prize  it  the  more.  When 
they  see  others,  who  were  of  the  same  nature  and  born 
under  the  same  circumstances,  plunged  in  such  misery, 

12 


178  Alan — Whence  and  Whither? 


and  they  so  distinguished,  oh,  it  will  make  them  sensible 
how  happy  they  are  !  A  sense  of  the  opposite  misery  in 
all  cases  greatly  increases  the  relish  of  any  joy  or  pleas- 
iire  /”  [The  italics  are  not  his.]  .  .  .  “  Every  time  they 
look  upon  the  damned  it  will  excite  in  them  a  lively  and 
admiring  sense  of  the  grace  of  God  in  making  them  so 
to  differ.” 

Nathaniel  Emmons,  D.  D.,  an  eminent  ortho¬ 
dox  Congregational  minister  of  New  England, 
who  died  in  1840,  and  who  had  been  the  pre¬ 
ceptor  of  nearly  one  hundred  young  preachers, 
in  one  of  his  published  sermons  says : 

“The  happiness  of  the  elect  in  heaven  will  in  part  con¬ 
sist  in  witnessing  the  torments  of  the  damned  in  hell ; 
and  among  these,  it  may  be,  their  own  children,  parents, 
husbands,  wives,  and  friends  on  earth.  One  part  of  the 
business  of  the  blessed  is  to  celebrate  the  doctrine  of  rep¬ 
robation.  While  the  decree  of  reprobation  is  eternally 
executing  on  the  vessels  of  wrath,  the  smoke  of  their 
torment  will  be  eternally  ascending  in  view  of  the  ves¬ 
sels  of  mercy,  who,  instead  of  taking  the  part  of  these 
miserable  objects,  will  say,  'Arnett  !  Hallelujah!  Praise 
the  Lord!’  ” 

It  would  be  easy  to  furnish  many  pages  of 
such  demoniacal  sentiments  from  Christian  the¬ 
ologians,  but  one  more  must  suffice.  The  Rev. 
Thomas  Boston,  in  his  Fouifold  State,  says  : 

“The  godly  wife  shall  applaud  the  justice  of  the  Judge 
in  the  condemnation  of  her  ungodly  husband.  The  godly 
husband  shall  say  ‘Amen  !’  to  the  damnation  of  her  who 
lay  in  his  bosom.  The  godly  parent  shall  say  *  Hallelu¬ 
jah  !’  at  the  passing  of  the  sentence  of  his  ungodly  child  ; 


179 


After  Death — What? 

and  the  godly  child  shall  from  his  heart  approve  the  dam¬ 
nation  of  his  wicked  parent  who  begot  him  and  the  mother 
who  bore  him.” 

No  wonder  that  an  old  Scandinavian  king, 
when  about  to  receive  Christian  baptism,  as  he 
put  one  foot  into  the  water  turned  to  the  officiat¬ 
ing  priest  and  asked  him  whether  he  would  meet 
his  ancestors  in  heaven.  When  informed  that 
they  were  all  suffering  the  torments  of  hell,  he 
drew  his  foot  back  and  refused  to  receive  the 
rite,  choosing  the  company  of  his  noble  ances¬ 
tors  in  perdition  rather  than  the  company  of 
such  priests  in  heaven. 

In  order  to  appreciate  these  horrible  dogmas, 
it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  just  what  is  meant 
by  the  “  torments  of  hell.”  The  prevailing  the¬ 
ology  of  Christendom  in  early  times  taught  the 
doctrine  of  a  literal  hell  of  material  fire.  Ter- 
tullian  said,  “The  damned  burn  eternally  with¬ 
out  consuming,  as  the  volcanoes,  which  are 
vents  from  the  stored  subterranean  fire  of  hell, 
burn  for  ever  without  wasting.”  Augustine,  the 
early  propagator  of  Calvinism,  argues  with  all 
his  ingenuity  to  show  how  the  bodies  of  the 
damned  may  withstand  the  undying  flames  of 
fire  without  being  consumed.  For  centuries 
past  this  doctrine  was  taught  in  most  literal 
and  revolting  terms.  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards, 
before  quoted,  says : 


i8o  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


“  The  world  will  probably  be  converted  into  a  great  lake 
or  liquid  globe  of  fire — a  vast  ocean  of  fire,  in  which  the 
wicked  shall  be  overwhelmed,  which  will  always  be  in 
tempest  in  which  they  shall  be  tossed  to  and  fro,  having 
no  rest  day  or  night,  vast  waves  or  billows  of  fire  con¬ 
tinually  rolling  over  their  heads,  of  which  they  shall  ever 
be  full  of  a  quick  sense  within  and  without ;  their  heads, 
their  eyes,  their  tongues,  their  hands,  their  feet,  their  loins, 
and  their  vitals  shall  for  ever  be  full  of  a  glowing,  melting 
fire  fierce  enough  to  melt  the  very  rocks  and  elements.” 

Some  theologians  have  said  that  in  hell  “  the 
bodies  of  the  damned  shall  be  ’nealed,  as  we 
speak  of  glass,  so  as  to  endure  the  fire  without 
being  annihilated  thereby,”  and  that,  “  made  of 
the  nature  of  salamanders,  they  shall  be  immor¬ 
tal,  kept  to  feel  immortal  fire.”  John  Wesley 
taught  this  doctrine  of  literal  hell-fire,  and  sug¬ 
gested  that  God  might  make  the  human  body 
incombustible  like  asbestos ,  that  it  might  not 
ever  be  consumed. 

The  following  quotation  is  from  the  most  pop¬ 
ular  living  preacher  of  the  world,  the  Baptist 
Rev.  Charles  Spurgeon  of  London,  taken  from 
his  famous  sermon  on  the  Resurrection  of  the 
Dead : 

‘‘When  thou  diest  thy  soul  will  be  tormented  alone; 
that  will  be  a  hell  for  it;  but  at  the  day  of  judgment  thy 
body  will  join  thy  soul,  and  then  thou  shalt  have  twin  hells, 
thy  soul  sweating  drops  of  blood  and  thy  body  suffused 
with  agony.  In  fire  exactly  like  that  which  we  have  on 
earth  [the  italics  are  not  his]  thy  body  will  lie,  asbestos- 


After  Death — -  What  ?  1 8 1 

like,  for  ever  unconsumed,  all  thy  veins  roads  for  the  feet 
of  pain  to  travel  on,  every  nerve  a  string  on  which  the 
devil  shall  for  ever  play  his  diabolical  tune  of  Hell' s  Un¬ 
til  ter  a  ble  Lament. 

This  “  elegant  extract  ”  from  a  living  theolo¬ 
gian  of  repute  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  fre¬ 
quent  assertion  that  these  horrible  doctrines 
have  been  abandoned  in  our  day.  But  who  can 
name  the  creed  or  confession  of  faith  that  has 
been  changed  on  this  subject?  Who  can  point 
out  a  “  Publication  Board  ”  or  a  “  Book  Concern  ” 
of  any  of  the  so-called  evangelical  churches 
which  has  excluded  from  its  shelves  the  num¬ 
erous  publications  in  which  these  monstrous 
dogmas  are  taught?  The  average  church-goer 
and  the  average  Sunday-school  child  are  left  at 
least  to  infer  that  unconverted  persons  are  ex¬ 
posed  to  eternal,  material  fiery  tortures  in  a  lake 
of  brimstone.  Religious  books,  and  even  books 
for  children,  are  full  of  these  sickening  barbari¬ 
ties,  which  the  common  people  always  take  in 
the  most  literal  sense. 

Take  the  following  from  a  Roman  Catholic 
“book  for  children,”  written  by  the  Rev.  J.  Fur- 
niss.  Describing  the  punishment  of  children  in 
hell,  he  says : 

“The  fourth  dungeon  is  the  boiling  kettle.  Listen! 
There  is  a  sound  like  that  of  a  kettle  boiling.  Is  it  really 
a  kettle  which  is  boiling  ?  No.  Then  what  is  it  ?  Hear 
what  it  is :  the  blood  is  boiling  in  the  scalded  veins  of 


1 8  2  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


that  boy ;  the  brain  is  boiling  and  bubbling  in  his  head  ; 
the  marrow  is  boiling  in  his  bones.  The  fifth  dungeon  is 
the  ‘red-hot-oven,’  in  which  is  a  little  child.  Hear  how 
it  screams  to  come  out !  See  how  it  turns  and  twists  itself 
about  in  the  fire  and  beats  its  head  against  the  roof  of  the 
oven !  It  stamps  its  little  feet  upon  the  floor  of  the  oven. 
To  this  child  God  was  very  good.  Very  likely  God  saw 
that  this  child  would  get  more  and  more  wicked  and 
would  never  repent,  and  so  it  would  have  to  be  punished 
much  more  in  hell ;  so  God  in  his  mercy  called  it  out  of 
this  world  in  its  early  childhood.” 

Be  not  too  much  incensed  at  this  Catholic 
teaching-  when  you  know  that  Protestants  have 
taught  things  equally  horrible  and  disgusting. 
Take  the  following  from  Edwards : 

“ Reprobate  infants  are  vipers  of  vengeance ,  which  Je¬ 
hovah  will  hold  over  hell  in  the  tongs  of  his  wrath  untii 
they  turn  and  spit  venom  in  his  face."  .  .  .  “God  holds 
sinners,”  he  says,  “in  his  hands  over  the  mouth  of  hell 
as  so  many  spiders  over  the  fire,  and  he  is  dreadfully  pro¬ 
voked  ;  and  he  not  only  hates  them,  but  holds  them  in  ut¬ 
most  contempt,  and  will  trample  them  beneath  his  feet 
with  inexpressible  fierceness;  he  will  crush  their  blood 
out,  and  will  make  it  fly  so  that  it  will  sprinkle  his  gar¬ 
ments  and  stain  all  his  raiment.” 

It  can  easily  be  shown  that  the  consignment 
of  innumerable  millions  of  infant  children  to 
such  hell-torments  is  a  necessary  conclusion 
from  the  theological  dogmas  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  and  of  the  confessions  held  by  all  the 
Calvinistic  and  so-called  “Reformed”  churches, 
and  is  so  admitted  by  many  of  the  ablest  divines 


After  Death — What?  183 

of  the  times.  Theologians,  Romish  and  Protest¬ 
ant,  have  given  loose  rein  to  the  imagination, 
and  have  exhausted  tropes  and  figures  to  the  ex¬ 
treme  power  of  language  to  suggest.  No  won¬ 
der  that  in  many  instances  whole  congregations 
have  become  frantic  with  fear,  and  have  given 
vent  to  their  agonized  feelings  in  screams  and 
shrieks  of  dispair.  Of  the  immoral  effects  of 
such  doctrines  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

This  subject  becomes  more  startling  as  we 
realize  the  fact  that,  according  to  the  teachings 
of  theologians— not  of  the  Dark  Ages,  but  in 
the  present  age  of  light  and  love — a  hell  of  eter¬ 
nal  torments  is  the  certain  doom  of  a  majority 
of  our  human  family.  The  Doom  of  the  Majority 
is  the  title  of  a  little  book  recently  prepared  by 
the  Rev.  Samuel  J.  Barrows,  in  which  it  is  proved 
by  actual  quotations  from  utterances  of  many 
leading  ministers  of  the  chief  orthodox  denom¬ 
inations  that  in  their  opinion  a  majority  of  our 
race  are  surely  doomed  to  eternal  damnation. 

An  orthodox  theologian  in  a  sermon  on  for¬ 
eign  missions  recently  submitted  the  estimate 
that  twenty  million  of  heathens  annually,  for 
the  eighteen  centuries  of  Christianity,  have  been 
pouring  into  hell.  “As  the  masses  of  water  have 
for  many  thousands  of  years  been  pouring  over 
the  walls  of  Niagara  into  the  deep  gulf,  so  have 
men,  women,  and  children  been  rushing  over  the 


184  Man — Whence  arid  Whither ? 


border  of  this  life  to  be  received  by  the  awful 
gulf.”  These  are  his  precise  words,  and,  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  figures,  not  less  than  thirty-seven  bil¬ 
lion  six  hundred  and  sixty  million  of  immortal 
souls  have  been  plunged  into  the  lake  of  fire  and 
brimstone  within  the  last  eighteen  hundred  and 
eighty-three  years,  and  in  this  year  of  grace 
1884  not  less  than  twenty  million  more  will  be 
added  as  incombustible  fuel  to  the  endless  flame. 
And  this  from  the  heathen  world  alone ! 

It  is  only  fair  to  state  that  there  are  among 
ministers,  especially  in  the  Congregational 
churches  of  New  England,  a  few  who  are  dis¬ 
posed  to  dissent  from  the  long-dominant  dogmas 
upon  this  subject,  and  who  take  a  more  rational 
view  of  future  punishment,  and  who  do  not  con¬ 
ceal  their  hopes  that  the  mercy  of  the  heavenly 
Father  toward  erring  mortals  is  not  limited  to 
the  present  brief  life.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
modern  drift  of  thought  in  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land. 

This  savors  somewhat  of  the  Romish  purga¬ 
torial  idea,  but  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the 
cunning  dogma  formulated  by  Pope  Gregory  in 
the  sixth  century.  The  Romish  purgatory,  as 
described  by  Bede  (called  the  Venerable)  in  the 
eighth  century,  is  literal,  gross,  and  horrible, 
and  the  designing  hierarchy  saw  in  it  an  engine 
of  power  easily  utilized.  The  place  is  awful, 


After  Death—  What  ?  185 

said  they.  Your  deceased  friends  are  suffeiing 
there  now,  but  the  Church — that  is,  the  pi usts 
can  help  them  out.  The  redemptive  price  paid 
by  Christ  was  far  in  excess  of  the  debt  of  sin. 
There  is  a  surplus  of  merit  in  his  vicarious  suf¬ 
ferings,  and  this  balance  is  at  the  disposal  of  the 
priesthood.  Besides  this,  many  saints  have  per¬ 
formed  works  of  supererogation,  and  their  sur¬ 
plus  of  credit  belongs  to  the  Church.  Then  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass,  continually  offered  by 
priests,  creates  a  still  further  reserved  balance 
upon  which  the  Church  can  draw  at  pleasuie 
and  pass  to  the  credit  of  the  unfortunate  suf¬ 
ferer  in  purgatory  whom  she  may  choose  to  thus 
favor.  This  gave  the  priesthood  a  power  almost 
omnipotent — the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell.  To 
this  day  this  shameless  fraud  is  practised  upon 
multitudes  of  ignorant  dupes,  many  of  whom 
deny  themselves  every  comfort  and  beggar  their 
families  to  raise  money  for  masses  to  get  their 
departed  friends  out  of  an  imaginary  purgatory. 

And  here  the  secret  might  just  as  well  be  let 
out,  that  all  the  doctrines  of  suffering  torment  in 
hell  and  purgatory  after  death  are  of  priestly  ori- 
o-in.  Priests  of  all  grades  will  defend  themselves 
by  pointing  to  the  teachings  of  the  Church  and 
to  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  ignoring  the 
demonstrable  fact  that  these  monstrous  doctrines 
are  older  than  Christianity,  older  than  the  New 


1 86  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

Testament,  and  older  than  the  Hebrew  people ; 
and  if  they  are  to  be  accredited  as  supernatural 
and  divine  revelations,  they  were  certainly  not  first 
revealed  to  Jews  and  Christians.  It  is  no  part 
of  our  present  plan  to  set  forth  what  the  Bible 
of  to-day  teaches  regarding  future  punishment, 
or  to  settle  theological  disputes  between  Partial- 
ists  and  Universalists.  To  the  common  reader 
there  appear  to  be  many  passages  which  sup- 
poit  opposite  theories.  The  point  to  be  empha¬ 
sized  is  the  fact  that  the  common  dogma  of  hetl- 
toi  merits  is  of  pagan  origin.  Some  fearful  pic¬ 
tures,  as  drawn  by  Christian  theologians,  have 
already  been  given  of  the  horrors  of  hell,  and 
these  might  be  increased  indefinitely,  but  no¬ 
thing  can  exceed  in  frightfulness  and  nauseating 
disgust  those  given  in  Hindu  and  Persian  sacred 

books.  The  Rev.  W.  R.  Alger  thus  speaks  of 
them  : 

“Some  are  hung  up  by  their  tongues  or  by  their  eyes, 
and  slowly  devoured  by  fiery  vermin;  some  scourged 
with  whips  of  serpents,  whose  poisonous  fangs  lacerate 
their  flesh  at  every  blow;  some  are  forced  to  swallow 
bowls  of  gore,  hair,  and  corruption,  freshly  filled  as  fast 
as  drained ;  some  packed  immovably  in  red-hot  iron 
chests  and  laid  in  raging  furnaces  for  unutterable  millions 
of  ages.  One  who  is  familiar  with  the  Buddhist  hells  will 
think  that  the  pencils  of  Dante  and  Pollok,  Jeremy  Tay- 
loi  and  Jonathan  Edwards,  were  dipped  in  water  when 
writing  upon  this  subject.  There  is  just  as  much  ground 
for  believing  the  accounts  of  the  former  to  be  true  as  there 


i87 


After  Death —  What  ? 

is  for  crediting  those  of  the  latter ;  the  two  are  fundament¬ 
ally  the  same,  and  the  pagan  had  earlier  possession  of 
the  field.” 

The  same  author  well  says  : 

‘‘The  popular  hells  have  ever  been  built  on  hierarchic 
selfishness,  dogmatic  pride,  and  personal  cruelty,  and 
have  been  walled  around  with  arbitrary  and  traditional 
rituals.  The  Parsee  priest  describes  a  woman  in  hell 
beaten  with  stone  clubs  by  two  demons  twelve  miles  in 
size,  and  compelled  to  continue  eating  a  basin  of  putrid¬ 
ity,  because  once  some  of  her  hair,  as  she  combed  it,  fell 
into  the  sacred  fire.”  .  .  .  ‘‘The  Brahmanic  priest  tells  of 
a  man  who,  for  neglecting  to  meditate  upon  the  mystic 
syllable  Om  before  praying,  was  thrown  down  into  hell  on 
an  iron  floor  and  cleaved  with  an  axe,  then  stirred  in  a 
caldron  of  molten  lead  till  covered  all  over  with  the 
sweated  foam  of  torture  like  a  grain  of  rice  in  an  oven, 
then  fastened,  with  head  downward,  to  a  chariot  of  fire 
and  urged  onward  with  a  red-hot  goad.” 

Quotations  from  ancient  Hindu  and  other  Ori¬ 
ental  writings  might  be  made  to  fill  volumes,  all 
going  to  show  the  origin  of  the  theological  hell 
in  the  fertile  imaginations  of  pagan  priests.  It  is 
sufficient  answer  to  some  dogmas  to  simply  state 
them.  Such  are  the  dogmas  of  theology  regard¬ 
ing  hell-torments.  They  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  any  proper  conceptions  of  the  Divine  cha¬ 
racter.  No  wonder  that  the  late  beloved  Rev. 
Albert  Barnes  of  this  city  was  so  distressed  in 
thinking  upon  them. 

“  In  the  distress  and  anguish  of  my  own  spirit,  I  con¬ 
fess,”  says  Mr.  Barnes,  “  I  see  no  light  whatever.  I  see 


1 88  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 


not  one  ray  of  light  to  disclose  to  me  why  sin  came  into 
the  world,  and  why  the  earth  is  strewn  with  the  dead  and 
dying,  and  why  men  must  suffer  to  all  eternity.  When 
I  feel  that  God  only  can  save  them,  and  yet  tie  does  not 
do  it ,  I  am  struck  dumb  ;  all  is  darkness  to  my  soul,  and 
I  cannot  disguise  it.” 

A  celebrated  French  preacher  (Saurin)  had 
similar  feelings.  He  said  : 

‘‘I  sink  under  the  weight  of  this  subject,  and  I  find  in 
the  thought  a  mortal  poison  which  diffuseth  itself  into 
every  period  of  my  life,  rendering  society  tiresome,  nour¬ 
ishment  insipid,  pleasure  disgustful,  and  life  itself  a  cruel 
bitter.” 

The  Rev.  Dr.  D.  D.  Whedon,  a  well-known 
Methodist  writer,  in  his  article  on  “Arminian- 
ism  in  Johnson' s  Cyclopaedia,  forcibly  indicates 
his  abhorrence  of  such  unholy  conceptions  of 
the  Divine  character  by  saying,  “  If  a  man  is  to 
be  damned  for  fulfilling  God’s  decrees,  ought  not 
that  imaginary  God  to  be,  a  fortiori ,  damned  for 
making  such  a  decree  ?”  This  startling  remark 
is  just  as  applicable  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
torments  for  the  majority  of  our  race  as  to  the 
dogma  of  predestination.  The  quaint  Scotch¬ 
man  who  wrote  for  his  own  tombstone  the 
following  epitaph  seems  to  have  had  the  idea 
that  God  would  not  treat  him  worse  than  he 
would  treat  God  if  their  places  were  changed : 

“  Here  lie  I,  Martin  Elginbrod. 

Have  mercy  on  me,  as  I  on  thee 

If  I  were  God  and  ye  were  Martin  Elginbrod  !” 


189 


After  Death —  What  ? 

God  cannot  have  less  justice  and  kindness 
than  man,  cannot  be  a  tyrant  and  a  monster, 
cannot  do  that  toward  unnumbered  multitudes 
which  if  done  toward  one  subject  by  an  earthly 
monarch,  even  to  a  limited  degree,  would  cause 
him  to  be  universally  execrated  and  the  whole 
civilized  world  to  demand  the  release  of  the 
unhappy  victim.  Fortunately,  men  cannot  be¬ 
lieve  such  monstrous  dogmas,  and  plainly  show 
that  they  do  not.  Who  would  not  be  eternally 
frantic  with  agony  at  the  thought  that  a  brother- 
man,  and  especially  that  some  dear  friend,  is 
now  writhing  and  agonizing,  and  must  for  ever 
writhe  and  agonize,  in  torments  which,  if  not 
literal  and  material,  can  only  be  adequately 
described  by  the  burning  of  brimstone?  Who 
could  under  such  circumstances  enjoy  the  com¬ 
forts  of  home  and  the  pleasant  social  surround¬ 
ings  of  life,  or  who  could  become  parents  and 
expose  their  offspring  to  the  horrible,  and  even 
probable,  sufferings  of  hell-torments,  preparing 
fuel  for  the  fires  of  an  eternal  furnace? 

While  it  is  irrational  and  impossible  to  accept 
these  horrible  dogmas  of  priestcraft  as  to  the 
eternal  torments  of  the  wicked,  it  is  equally 
unreasonable  and  impracticable  to  believe  that 
at  death  all  men  enter  upon  a  state  of  perfect 
happiness,  without  regard  to  their  past  lives  or 
their  moral  characters. 


190  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

The  doctrine  of  rewards  and  punishments 
after  death  is  clearly  suggested  by  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  natural  religion  which  have  been  recog¬ 
nized  by  all  men,  pagan  and  Christian.  That 
virtue  brings  its  own  reward  and  vice  its  own 
punishment  is  a  fact  in  the  experience  of  men 
in  this  life.  It  must  be  so  in  the  life  to  come,  as 
the  order  of  the  universe  cannot  be  changed  by 
time  or  place.  No  valid  objection  can  be  made 
to  the  principle  of  future  punishment.  But  its 
nature  and  object  must  be  taken  into  the  ac¬ 
count.  True  punishment  is  never  arbitrary  nor 
vindictive.  It  is  remedial,  reformatory,  disci¬ 
plinary,  and  has  respect  to  the  constitution  of 
moral  government  and  the  best  interests  and 
welfare  of  its  subjects.  Suffering  is  a  consequence 
of  sin,  not  a  judicial  penalty,  and  happiness  is 
not  a  favor  conferred  by  grace,  but  a  legitimate 
product  of  right  being  rather  than  of  right  doing. 
Men  are  rewarded  or  punished,  both  in  this  life 
and  the  life  to  come,  not  so  much  for  what  they 
have  done  or  not  done  as  for  what  they  are. 
Suffering  is  intended  to  put  an  end  to  that 
which  causes  suffering,  and  is  for  the  good  of 
the  sufferer.  In  this  world  and  in  all  possible 
worlds  sin  must  be  a  source  of  suffering,  and 
goodness  a  fountain  of  happiness.  The  degree 
of  happiness  or  misery  of  man  after  death  must 
be  in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  his  perfection 


After  Death —  What  ?  1 9 1 

or  imperfection,  and  suffering  must  last  so  long 
as  sin  lasts,  even  if  it  be  eternal ;  but  it  must 
cease  when  sin  ceases,  though  the  evil  fruits 
may  not  immediately  cease. 

Heaven  is  wherever  there  are  pure  and  conse¬ 
quently  happy  souls,  and  hell,  wherever  there  are 
sinful  and  therefore  suffering  spirits.  The  degree 
of  happiness  or  misery  in  this  and  all  other  pos¬ 
sible  spheres  must  always  be  proportionate  to  the 
moral  status  and  progress  of  the  individual.  It 
is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  man  is  morally  after 
death  just  what  he  is  at  death — that  the  mere 
change  of  the  form  and  circumstances  of  his  ex¬ 
istence  can  make  no  change  in  moral  character. 
It  is  equally  rational  to  conclude  that  whenever 
and  wherever  the  wicked  turn  from  their  wicked¬ 
ness  and  do  that  which  is  right,  it  shall  be  well 
with  them. 

Some  persons  think  that  it  will  be  easier  for 
wicked  men  to  reform  after  death  than  before, 
but  the  opinion  of  Swedenborg  was  just  the  op¬ 
posite,  and  his  reasons  are  weighty  and  worthy 
of  consideration.  It  is  best  and  safest  to  be  right 
and  to  do  right  now ,  and  then  we  need  have  no 
anxiety  for  the  future.  It  is  character ,  not  creed , 
that  makes  heaven  and  hell — not  what  we  believe , 
but  what  we  are.  It  is  not  the  particular  emotion 
or  exercise  of  mind  or  heart  that  we  may  experi¬ 
ence  at  some  particular  time,  but  it  is  the  charac - 


192  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

ter  we  have  evolved  and  established,  that  will 
constitute  “  meetness  for  the  inheritance  of  the 
saints  in  light.” 

The  same  penal  code  must  prevail  in  the  next 
life  that  prevails  here,  and  it  may  be  thus  sum¬ 
marized  :  (1)  Suffering  is  a  consequence  of  imper¬ 
fection  and  wrong-doing.  (2)  Imperfection  and 
wrong-doing  will  meet  their  appropriate  punish¬ 
ment  in  the  future  life  as  in  this  world.  (3)  The 
effect  will  only  continue  so  long  as  the  cause 
exists.  (4)  Men  will  for  ever  make  their  own 
heaven  or  hell,  and  there  is  good  reason  for  be¬ 
lieving  that  the  sufferings  of  many  persons  after 
death  will  be,  beyond  all  conception,  awful  in  the 
extreme.  (5)  But  the  “  immortal  hope  ”  justifies 
the  conclusion  that  all  men  will,  sooner  or  later, 
be  established  in  holiness  and  happiness. 

In  response  to  the  question,  After  death — 
zvhat?  the  proper  answer  is  interrogative:  In  life 
— zvhat?  Death  is  transition,  not  transmutation. 
It  is  emigration,  not  Pythagorean  transmigration. 
Change  of  place  does  not  make  change  of  cha¬ 
racter.  It  is  therefore  reasonable  to  conclude  that 
a  man  after  death  is  just  what  he  was  before 
death.  Every  man  will  gravitate  to  his  own 
place.  The  law  of  elective  affinity,  that  now 
causes  “  birds  of  a  feather  to  flock  together,” 
must  be  as  effectual  in  another  world  as  in  this. 
There  will  be  as  many  grades  of  moral  charac- 


193 


After  Death — What  ? 

ter  after  death  as  before  death,  and  therefore  as 
many  heavens  and  hells.  Swedenborg  was  right, 
no  doubt,  in  describing  the  spirit-world  as  a 
counterpart  of  this.  There  may  be  “  Five  Points  ” 
and  “  Baxter  ”  streets  and  “  St.  Mary’s  ”  streets 
and  “  degraded  districts  ”  over  the  dark  river  as 
really  as  they  exist  here.  Misers  and  drunkards 
and  libertines  will  still  be  misers,  drunkards,  and 
libertines,  and  will  naturally  gravitate  to  con¬ 
genial  associations.  Those  who  love  the  beauti¬ 
ful,  the  pure,  the  true,  the  right,  the  unselfish, 
the  humane,  the  philanthropic,  will  have  the 
same  tastes  and  desires  after  death  as  before 
death,  and  will  not  only  naturally  float  to  kin¬ 
dred  spirits,  but  these  heavenly  principles  must 
find  exercise  and  expression  in  cheerful  efforts 
to  uplift  and  make  pure  and  holy  and  happy 
those  who  are  so  unfortunate  as  to  have  failed 
to  become  so  before  death. 

And  this  leads  us  to  the  rational,  ideal  heaven. 
It  is  not  a  place  of  thrones  and  harps  and  psalm- 
singers  reposing  in  that  eternal  idleness  which 
John  Hay  aptly  described  as  “loafing  around 
the  throne,’’  but  a  state  of  undying  activities,  of 
ceaseless  efforts  to  know  more,  to  be  more,  and 
to  do  more  for  humanity. 

After  mature  reflection  the  conclusion  must  be 
reached  that  the  greatest  happiness  of  which  man 
is  capable  arises  from  three  sources :  (i)  The  per- 
13 


194  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


ception  of  new  truth ;  (2)  Its  impartation  to  others ; 
(3)  Doing  good  to  others.  A  more  rational  con¬ 
ception  of  future  blessedness  than  this  is  impos¬ 
sible. 

In  th  e  higher  life  we  shall  doubtless  continue 
the  search  for  knowledge  and  eternally  progress 
in  wisdom,  truth,  and  holiness.  While  there  are 
beings  in  the  universe  who  know  less,  and  are 
less,  and  have  less  than  themselves,  men  shall 
find  their  greatest  happiness  in  unwearied  efforts 
to  elevate  and  bless  them.  Dr.  Griffen  in  a  mis¬ 
sionary  sermon  once  said :  “  If  all  the  human 
beings  on  earth  were  converted  to  Christianity 
except  one  man,  and  he  dwelt  in  some  far-off 
island  of  the  sea,  it  would  be  worth  while  to 
form  the  whole  converted  race  into  a  missionary 
society  to  convert  that  last  man.”  This  is  the 
true  spirit  of  consecrated  humanity,  the  heaven¬ 
ly  employment  of  the  higher  spheres ;  for  while 
eternity  lasts  there  will  be  work  to  do  for  this 
world,  and  perchance  for  other  worlds.  No  arch¬ 
angel  in  the  most  exalted  heavens  can  sink  into 
peaceful  repose  while  there  is  suffering  to  be  as¬ 
suaged  in  any  portion  of  God’s  universe.  No 
saint  in  heaven  can  enjoy  unalloyed  bliss  while 
there  is  one  human  soul  in  earth  or  hell  to  be 
uplifted  and  made  holy  and  happy.  If  “  enthusi¬ 
asm  for  humanity”  is  not  the  essence  of  religion 
on  earth,  there  is  no  religion  worth  having ;  and 


195 


After  Death —  What  ? 

if  religion  after  death  and  in  all  possible  worlds 
is  not  the  same,  then  is  truth  a  mockery  and  life 
itself  a  delusive  dream. 

If  these  views  are  correct,  it  is  the  highest 
wisdom  to  cherish  and  cultivate  on  earth  and 
during  life  the  tastes,  the  desires,  the  affections, 
the  principles  which  in  themselves  constitute  the 
highest  bliss  of  saints  and  angels  in  all  possible 
worlds.  And  as  to  hell  after  death,  we  have  no¬ 
thing  to  fear  but  the  hell  we  may  carry  with  us 
— the  hell  of  unholy  lust,  the  hell  of  unsanctified 
passion,  the  hell  of  selfishness,  the  hell  of  wrong 
living  and  wrong  doing. 

And  this  is  what  makes  death  so  serious.  It 
is  the  transition  from  one  form  of  life  to  another 
in  which  we  shall  take  with  us  all  that  we  really 
are  and  have.  The  river  of  death  has  no  cleans¬ 
ing  or  life-giving  quality,  and  our  moral  status  at 
the  close  of  earth-life  will  settle  the  condition 
upon  which  we  commence  the  continued  life 
after  death — not  that  what  we  may  think  or  say 
or  believe  on  the  death-bed  or  in  the  last  mo¬ 
ments  will  or  can  determine  our  future  happi¬ 
ness  or  misery,  as  some  vainly  suppose,  but  that 
the  character  formed  before  death  will  make  the 
heaven  or  hell  with  which  we  commence  spirit- 
life  after  bodily  dissolution. 

It  would  be  easy  to  indulge  in  fanciful  figures 
of  the  future  life  of  man,  both  in  the  heavens  and 


196  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

the  hells.  Swedenborg  and  many  of  his  dis¬ 
ciples  have  written  freely  upon  these  subjects, 
and  a  recent  French  publication,  written  by  a 
noted  man  under  the  norn-de-pluine  of  Allan 
Kardec,  entitled  Heaven  and  Hell,  might  be 
studied  to  advantage.  There  are  many  pub¬ 
lished  descriptions  of  the  spirit-world,  profess¬ 
edly  given  by  those  who  have  been  permitted 
to  return  and  hold  communion  with  surviving 
friends,  of  the  genuineness  of  which  all  must 
judge  for  themselves.  It  is  safest  to  be  gov¬ 
erned  by  general  principles,  of  which  no  doubt 
can  be  entertained,  in  forming  opinions  of  the 
life  to  come,  such  as  we  have  briefly  summar¬ 
ized.  “Now  we  see  through  a  glass  darkly;” 
there  the  veil  of  gross  flesh  will  be  removed, 
and  we  shall  no  doubt  see  and  be  seen  in  the 
true  light.  It  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  make 
our  lives  here  what  we  would  have  them  to  be 
hereafter,  and  calmly  wait  the  issue.  We  found 
loving  arms  ready  to  receive  us  when  we  entered 
this  world,  and  the  bountiful  Father  will  not 
neglect  to  provide  for  us  in  the  new  stage  upon 
which  we  shall  soon  enter. 

The  order  of  the  universe  is  eternal,  and  our 
only  anxiety  should  be  to  find  ourselves  in  har¬ 
mony  with  its  relentless  principles  of  law. 


VIII. 


SCIENTIFIC  EVOLUTION  AND  THEOLOGIC 
REVOLUTION. 

IT  is  with  singular  propriety  that  the  present 
is  described  as  the  vidtcvicilistic  age.  The 
tendency  of  modern  scientific  thought,  so  called, 
is  to  attempt  to  account  for  everything  in  the 
universe  on  natural  principles,  while  theology 
claims  supernatural  infallibility. 

And  right  here  it  is  proper  to  define  what  we 
mean  by  science.  The  primary  meaning  is  know¬ 
ledge — the  comprehension  and  understanding  of 
truth,  facts  established  beyond  controversy,  dem¬ 
onstrated  propositions.  If  we  use  the  word  in 
this  sense,  it  will  be  found  that  much  which  has 
been  called  science  should  be  known  by  a  very 
different  name.  The  fact  is,  that  many  so-called 
scientists  are  the  most  credulous,  illogical,  and 
irrational  of  men.  They  deal  largely  in  postula¬ 
tions  and  assumptions.  They  write  ponderous 
folios  in  support  of  hypotheses  depending  upon 
assumed  premises.  They  often  reach  conclu¬ 
sions  which  do  not  logically  follow  admitted 
principles. 


197 


198  Man — Whence  arid  Whither? 


The  number  of  things  really  knozvn  is  astound- 
ingly  small.  Even  La  Place  is  reported  to  have 
said,  in  his  last  hours,  “What  we  do  not  know 
is  enormous.” 

Flights  of  imagination  are  not  peculiar  to  poets, 
nor  false  conclusions  and  unverified  statements 
characteristic  of  theologians  only.  As  many 
falsehoods  have  been  published  in  the  name  of 
science  as  in  the  name  of  theology.  Our  own 
great  inventor  Edison  thus  discourses  on  the 
unreliability  of  professional  scientists : 

“  Their  text-books  are  mostly  misleading.  I  get  mad 
with  myself  when  I  think  I  have  believed  what  was  so 
learnedly  set  out  in  them.  There  are  more  frauds  in 
science  than  anywhere  else.”  .  .  .  “  Take  a  whole  pile 
of  them  that  I  can  name,  and  you  will  find  uncertainty, 
if  not  imposition ,  in  half  of  what  they  state  as  scientific 
truth.  They  have  time  and  again  set  down  experiments 
as  done  by  them  .  .  .  that  they  never  did ,  and  upon 
which  they  have  founded  so-called  scientific  truths.  I 
have  been  thrown  off  my  track  often  by  them,  and  for 
months  at  a  time.” 

Moreover,  scientists  do  not  agree  among  them¬ 
selves,  and  have  as  many  conflicting  creeds  as 
the  churches,  and  call  each  other  by  names 
equally  contemptuous.  Professor  Tyndall  has 
pronounced  Dr.  Bastian  an  ignoramus,  and  some 
think  that  he  proved  it;  and  President  McCosh 
has,  by  implication  at  least,  called  Tyndall  a 
“  tyro  in  philosophy  ”  for  his  mistake  in  placing 


Science  and  Creeds . 


199 


Empedocles  after  Democritus  instead  of  before 
him.  Prof.  Tyndall  has  admitted  that  “  the  de¬ 
sire  to  establish  or  avoid  a  certain  result  can  so 
warp  the  mind  as  to  destroy  its  power  of  esti¬ 
mating  facts.”  The  difficulty  of  overcoming 
preconceived  ideas  is  a  matter  of  common  expe¬ 
rience.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  reason  men 
out  of  what  is  not  founded  in  reason. 

It  is  well  known  to  historians  that  there  has 
always  been  a  conflict  between  science  and  sci¬ 
ence  so  called,  and  that  the  science  of  one  period 
has  in  many  things  been  proved  to  be  no  science 
in  a  succeeding  period.  This  should  teach  its 
votaries  a  lesson  of  diffidence,  to  say  the  least. 
But  there  is  a  true  science,  because  there  are 
facts ;  and  a  fact  can  be  shown  to  be  in  harmo¬ 
nious  relation  with  every  other  fact  in  the  uni¬ 
verse,  but  an  assumption  will  always  need  many 
other  assumptions  to  keep  it  company. 

A  great  deal  of  controversy  arises  from  the 
improper  use  of  terms.  Professor  Draper’s  great 
book,  History  of  the  Conflict  between  Religion  and 
Science ,  has  a  misnomer  in  its  very  title.  There 
is  no  conflict  between  religion  and  science,  and 
the  learned  author  himself  shows  that  the  real 
“  conflict  ”  has  ever  been  between  the  dogmatism 
of  ecclesiastics  and  the  truths  of  science. 

The  word  religion}  too,  has  been  so  abused 
that  one  is  tempted  to  drop  it  altogether.  It 


200  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


has  been  made  the  synonym  of  everything  de¬ 
testable.  And  yet  religion  is  a  fact,  and  a  sci¬ 
entific  fact  too. 

Even  Professor  Tyndall  says  : 

“  The  facts  of  religious  feeling  are  to  me  as  certain  as 
the  facts  of  physics.”  .  .  .  “  The  world  will  have  religion 
of  some  kind.”  .  .  .  “You  who  have  escaped  from  these 
religions  into  the  high  and  dry  light  of  intellect  may  de¬ 
ride  them,  but  in  doing  so  you  deride  accidents  of  form 
merely,  and  fail  to  touch  the  immovable  basis  of  the  re¬ 
ligious  sentiment  in  the  nature  of  man.  To  yield  this 
sentiment  reasonable  satisfaction  is  the  problem  of  prob¬ 
lems  at  this  hour.” 

Renan  also,  who  is  often  vilified  as  an  infidel, 
writes  thus  : 

“  All  the  symbols  which  serve  to  give  shape  to  the  re¬ 
ligious  sentiment  are  imperfect,  and  their  fate  is  to  be  one 
after  another  rejected.  But  nothing  is  more  remote  from 
the  truth  than  the  dream  of  those  who  seek  to  imagine  a 
perfected  humanity  without  religion.”  .  .  .  “  Devotion  is 
as  natural  as  egoism  to  a  true-born  man.  The  organiza¬ 
tion  of  devotion  is  religion.  Let  no  one  hope,  therefore, 
to  dispense  with  religion  or  religious  associations.  Each 
progression  of  modern  society  will  render  this  want  more 
imperious.” 

John  Stuart  Mill,  Herbert  Spencer,  and  other 
leaders  of  scientific  thought  are  equally  explicit 
on  this  subject,  and  are  no  more  deserving  of 
beiiisf  called  infidels  than  the  dean  of  Westmin- 

o 

ster  or  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

The  word  religion  often,  but  very  improperly, 
conveys  the  idea  of  bondage ,  because  some  have 


Science  and  Creeds. 


201 


derived  the  word  from  religare ,  to  bind  back  or 
behind,”  “  to  bind  fast,”  forgetting  that  it  some¬ 
times  means,  according  to  high  classical  author¬ 
ity,  “  to  unbind  ”  One  of  the  most  accomplished 
classical  scholars  of  the  day,  Francis  Ellingwood 
Abbot,  has  conclusively  shown  in  his  tract,  A 
Study  of  Religion,  that  the  word  “  religion  ”  is  real¬ 
ly  derived  from  relegere  or  religere ,  signifying  46  to 
go  through  or  over  again  in  reading,  in  speech, 
or  in  thought  ” — that  is,  to  review  carefully  and 
faithfully,  to  ponder  or  reflect  with  conscientious 
fidelity.  That  this  is  the  real,  root  origin  of  the 
word  is  proved  by  Quotations  from  Cicero  and 
others  who  thus  used  the  word  centuries  befoie 
it  was  used  in  a  different  sense  by  the  Chiistian 
Fathers.  Religion  in  its  true  meaning  is  the 
great  fact  of  duty,  of  moral  sense,  of  conscience , 
of  right ,  and  of  obligation  to  seek  conformity  to 
the  highest  ideal  formed  from  the  most  careful, 
honest,  and  devout  contemplation.  In  principle 
it  is  inseparable  from  the  idea  of  rworshipfulness , 
and  in  its  outward  manifestations  it  is  a  life  of 
pure  morality  and  practical  good-will  toward 
mankind.  44  Pure  religion  and  undefiled  before 
God  and  the  Father  is  this  :  To  visit  the  father¬ 
less  and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep 
himself  unspotted  from  the  world”  (James  I  :  27). 
All  true  religion  consists  in  an  effort ,  serious ,  con¬ 
scientious ,  and  devout ,  to  realize  ideal  excellence , 


202  Man — Whence  arid  Whither? 


and  to  transform  it  into  actual  character  and  prac¬ 
tical  life. 

Between  real  science  and  true  religion  there  is 
no  conflict.  But  if  religion  is  the  special  prop¬ 
erty  of  an  ecclesiastical  corporation  consisting  of 
a  professional  hierarchy,  whose  prerogative  it  is 
to  formulate  dogmas  and  to  define  a  routine  of 
ordinances  which  must  be  believed  and  observed 
without  question  on  pain  of  eternal  damnation, 
and  if  to  be  truly  religious  it  is  necessary  to  ac¬ 
cept  as  true  the  fundamental  dogmas  of  the  dom¬ 
inant  theology,  Catholic  or  Protestant,  then  there 
is  a  scientific  antagonism  which  can  never  cease, 
an  irrepressible  conflict  which  must  become 
stronger  and  more  determined  and  pronounced 
as  knowledge  increases  and  civilization  rises  to  a 
higher  state.  If  religion  is  creed  instead  of  cha¬ 
racter, ,  believing  or  professing  to  believe  instead 
of  right  doing  and  noble  living — if  it  is  to  pro¬ 
nounce  the  shibboleth  of  the  sects  and  to  go 
through  the  routine  of  Sunday  rituals — if  the 
Church  is  a  sort  of  patent-right  association  hav¬ 
ing  a  mystic  secret  for  saving  souls  by  supernat¬ 
ural  processes, — then  a  most  determined  war  will 
be  waged,  not  only  on  the  part  of  scientific  men, 
but  by  the  great  masses  of  thinking  people. 

There  is  no  use  in  attempting  to  conceal  the 
fact  that  the  Church  as  represented  by  the  Rom¬ 
ish  hierarchy  and  the  dominant  Protestant  sects 


Science  and  Creeds. 


203 


is  a  failure.  Not  that  it  has  not  much  in  it  that 
is  good.  Not  that  it  has  not  done  great  good, 
or  that  it  does  not  now  do  much  good,  but  that, 
after  making  many  concessions  and  giving  much 
credit,  it  is  still  a  comparative  failure.  It  has 
failed  to  formulate  a  system  of  doctrines  that  in¬ 
telligent  men  can  rationally  accept.  It  has  failed 
to  bring  the  masses  of  the  people  into  its  sacied 
edifices.  It  has  failed  to  establish  a  public  mo¬ 
rality  superior  to  the  ancient  eclecticism.  Those 
who  are  members  of  the  Church  cannot  be  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  those  who  are  not  by  their 
greater  fidelity  in  public  trusts,  higher  integrity 
in  commercial  pursuits,  or  greater  honor  and 
purity  in  the  various  relations  of  life.  Indeed,  it 
is  becoming  a  serious  question  in  many  minds 
whether  the  fundamental  doctrines  taught  by 
both  Catholics  and  Protestants  (for  they  are  sub¬ 
stantially  the  same)  are  not,  in  some  aspects,  nat¬ 
urally  and  philosophically  demoralizing,  and 
legitimately  tend  to  produce  the  sorrowful  state 
of" things  so  much  to  be  deplored  throughout 
Christendom.  ' 

Matthew  Arnold  has  tersely  said  that  “we 
cannot  get  along  without  a  religion,  and  it  is 
equally  certain  that  we  cannot  get  along  with  the 
religion  we  have.”  There  is  something  rotten  in 
the^ecclesiastical  state  of  Denmark.  The  oint¬ 
ment  that  should  be  pure  sends  forth  a  flavor 


204  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


that  indicates  the  presence  of  many  a  dead  fly, 
while  the  secret  closets  of  ecclesiasticism  are 
justly  suspected  of  containing  many  damning 
skeletons.  To  expose  the  corruption  and  apply 
the  appropriate  remedy  is  a  more  herculean  task 
than  the  purification  of  the  famous  Augean  sta¬ 
bles,  which,  according  to  the  fable,  contained 
three  thousand  oxen  and  had  not  been  cleansed 
in  thirty  years. 

The  foundation  principle  in  dogmatic  theology, 
Romish  and  Protestant,  is  the  total  depravity  of 
man  through  legitimate  inheritance  by  natural 
generation  and  regular  descent  from  a  certain 
human  pair  named  Adam  and  Eve,  who,  though 
created  pure  and  perfect,  by  a  single  act  of  dis¬ 
obedience,  trifling  in  itself,  fell  from  their  prim¬ 
aeval  holiness  and  entailed  sin  and  misery  upon  all 
their  unfortunate  progeny,  so  that  in  a  certain 
sense  all  men  “  sinned  in  Adam,  and  fell  with 
him  in  the  first  transgression.”  This  basic  dog¬ 
ma  of  theology  is  claimed  to  be  a  matter  of  spe¬ 
cial  divine  revelation  written  down  in  a  sacred 
book. 

Those  who  have  carefully  considered  the  sec¬ 
ond  chapter  of  this  series  know  how  much  im¬ 
portance  to  attach  to  this  fanciful  story.  It  is 
not  original  or  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
as  has  been  shown,  but  was  manifestly  borrowed 
from  some  one  or  more  of  the  older  and  more 


Science  and  Creeds. 


205 


civilized  peoples  of  antiquity,  who  knew  it  to  be 
a  myth ,  and  from  whom  we  learn  its  origin  in 
connection  with  their  sublime  system  of  sun- 
worship.  The  whole  narrative  of  the  garden  of 
Eden,  the  talking  serpent,  and  the  apple-eating 
woman  was  well  understood  by  the  ancient  poets 
and  priests  to  be  fabulous,  a  mere  fancy  sketch 
suggested  by  the  revolutions  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  and  the  consequent  changes  of  the  sea¬ 
sons.  Leading  Jewish  and  Christian  writers  for 
centuries  admitted  the  allegorical  character  of 
the  old  fable  of  the  fall  of  man  in  the  paradisaical 
Eden,  and  no  attempt  was  ever  made  to  palm  it 
off  as  historical  truth  until  the  demands  of  dog¬ 
matic  theology  made  it  necessary.  It  is  safe  to 
allege  that  no  man  of  learning  now  attempts  to 
defend  it  except  in  the  interests  of  an  effete  sa¬ 
cerdotalism,  and  those  who  do  so  are  justly 
chargeable  with  ignorance  of  history,  compara¬ 
tive  religions,  and  the  infallible  testimony  of 
science,  or  with  a  degree  of  disingenuousness 
that  might  without  uncharitableness  be  called 
by  a  stronger  name. 

Science  has  demonstrated  the  fact  that  prim¬ 
aeval  man  was  a  being  of  exceeding  low  estate, 
nearly  allied  to  the  lower  animals,  and  that  for 
unnumbered  centuries  he  has  been  rising,  until 
he  has  attained  his  present  proud  position.  True, 
the  stream  of  human  progress  has  not  been  un- 


206  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


interrupted.  Man  has  had  his  ups  and  downs, 
but  the  steady  general  ascent  is  unmistakably 
shown  by  the  discoveries  of  science  and  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  history.  There  is  nothing  in  history 
or  science  to  justify  the  Miltonian  conception  of 
the  deterioration  and  degradation  of  man  from 
an  angelic  perfection  previously  enjoyed,  but 
there  are  very  many  facts  that  can  never  be 
reconciled  with  such  an  assumption. 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  logical  consequences  of 
the  position  we  are  obliged  to  take.  If  the  so- 
called  fait  of  man  is  a  myth ,  the  foundation  of 
the  entire  system  of  dogmatic  theology  is  de¬ 
stroyed,  and  the  whole  superstructure  falls  into 
a  mass  of  rubbish.  Professional  theologians  un¬ 
derstand  this,  and  fully  realize  that  if  the  first 
link  of  the  chain  is  broken  the  remaining  links 
must  fall  into  confusion.  No  wonder  that  they  so 
earnestly  contend  for  the  story  of  “  Eden  and  the 
Fall!'  If  we  reject  the  fable  of  the  fall  of  Adam 
and  the  total  depravity  of  all  men  through  natural 
descent  and  inheritance  from  him,  it  follows  as  a 
logical  sequence  that  there  is  no  solid  foundation 
for  what  is  called  in  theological  parlance  the 
“  redemptive  scheme!'  The  word  scheme  is  nearly 
synonymous  with  the  words  “  plan,”  “  project,” 
and  “  contrivance.”  Theology  implies  that  even 
the  fall  of  our  alleged  first  parents  was  in  pur¬ 
suance  of  an  eternal  plan  of  God,  he  having  vir- 


Science  and  Creeds . 


207 


tually  allowed  it  by  a  “permissive  decree ,”  having 
“  eternally  purposed  ”  to  redeem  a  portion  of  de¬ 
generate  humanity  by  a  divine  contrivance. 
Ponderous  volumes  have  been  written  to  vindi¬ 
cate  the  divine  wisdom  and  goodness  in  the 
creation  and  fall  of  man,  involving  the  awful 
doom  of  unborn  millions,  but  nothing  has  ever 
been  written  to  satisfy  the  heart  or  the  reason 
of  man.  The  alleged  facts  stand  in  awful  and 
impenetrable  mystery,  absolutely  irreconcilable 
with  our  necessary  conceptions  of  infinite  wisdom 
and  love.  It  cannot  be  that  the  Infinite  Father 
could  have  placed  his  own  offspring  at  such  a 
disadvantage  involving  such  tremendous  conse¬ 
quences. 

But  it  is  argued  that  in  the  very  day  of  the 
fall  of  man  God  intimated  his  purpose  to  redeem 
him  through  the  bloody  sacrifice  of  his  only- 
begotten  Son,  in  the  promise  that  “  the  seed  of 
the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent’s  head 
that  in  accordance  with  this  scheme  he  estab¬ 
lished  a  system  of  bloody  sacrifices  typical  of 
the  infinite  Sacrifice  to  be  offered  on  Calvary 
after  the  lapse  of  centuries  ;  and  that  he  commit¬ 
ted  the  knowledge  of  this  divine  contrivance  to 
the  Hebrew  people  as  his  chosen  ones.  This, 
of  course,  made  it  necessary  to  establish  a  pnest- 
hood ,  for  how  could  there  be  altars  and  sacrifices 
without  priests  ? 


208  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


But  here  we  are  confronted  by  the  astounding 
fact  that  the  whole  system  of  vicarious  atone¬ 
ment  through  bloody  sacrifices  is  the  most 
prominent  characteristic  of  the  most  ancient 
pagan  religions.  Moreover,  all  nations,  from  the 
most  remote  Hindoo  to  the  modern  Christian, 
have  had  essentially  the  same  ideas,  modified 
by  circumstances,  regarding  a  divine  incarnation 
through  a  human  mother,  generally  a  virgin — 
the  divine  man,  always  a  moral  teacher  and  re¬ 
former,  closing  his  wonderful  life,  in  the  last  act 
of  the  moral  drama,  by  a  violent  death,  generally 
crucifixion.  Petty  preachers  mislead  their  hear¬ 
ers  by  ignorantly  asserting  that  these  ancient  peo¬ 
ples  obtained  their  ideas  from  the  divine  revela¬ 
tion  made  to  Jews  and  Christians,  but  the  most 
eminent  Sanskrit  scholar  of  the  world,  Max 
Muller,  professor  in  the  orthodox  University  of 
Oxford,  says :  “  The  opinion  that  the  pagan  re¬ 
ligions  were  mere  corruptions  of  the  religion  of 
the  Old  Testament,  once  supported  by  men  of 
high  authority  and  learning,  is  now  as  complete¬ 
ly  surrendered  as  the  attempt  at  explaining  Greek 
and  Latin  as  corruptions  of  Hebrew.” 

It  is  certain  that  if  the  redemptive  scheme  of 
modern  theology  through  a  divine  incarnation 
and  vicarious  sacrifice  is  a  supernatural  revela¬ 
tion,  it  was  not  first  given  to  Jews  and  Christians. 
It  is  impossible  to  give  details  here  and  now,  but 


Science  and  Creeds. 


209 


it  is  safe  to  risk  one’s  reputation  for  intelligence 
and  honesty  upon  the  allegation  that  the  redemp¬ 
tive  contrivance  of  dogmatic  theology  is  as 
heathenish  and  mythical  as  the  fanciful  fable  of 
the  fall  of  Adam  and  Eve ;  and  the  one  is  de¬ 
pendent  upon  the  other.  If  all  men  are  not 
descendants  of  Adam,  and  if  he  did  not  fall  as 
the  legend  alleges,  and  men  are  not  depraved  in 
consequence  of  such  fall,  but  from  other  causes, 
then  the  whole  system  of  salvation  through  the 
vicarious  blood  of  an  innocent  person  must  go 
down  for  want  of  foundation.  It  can  be  shown 
just  how  the  dogma  of  vicarious  atonement 
originated,  and  how  it  came  to  be  incorporated 
into  modern  theological  systems. 

There  are  several  other  links  in  the  mystical 
theologic  chain  that  must  also  drop  out  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  failure  of  the  first  link.  Priests 
of  all  classes,  as  a  sacred  order ,  an  elect  holy  caste , 
must,  as  a  consequence,  be  regarded  as  impos¬ 
tors,  though  many  of  them  may  be  regarded  as 
useful  moral  teachers.  The  idea  of  a  holy  order 
of  men  having  special  sanctity  and  peculiar  medi¬ 
atorial  functions  between  God  and  man  is  a  relic 
of  heathen  superstition,  and  must  soon  be  so  re¬ 
garded  except  by  the  sacerdotal  class  itself  and 
their  confiding  dupes. 

The  dogma  that  death  would  have  been  un¬ 
known  but  for  Adam’s  fall  is  so  flatly  contra- 


14 


2io'  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 

dieted  by  the  facts  of  geology  that  one  should 
blush  to  suggest  it,  even  at  funerals,  when  every 
intelligent  man  knows  that  millions  of  animals 
died  before  man  appeared  upon  this  globe. 

It  could  easily  be  shown  how  the  dogmas  of 
the  material  resurrection  of  the  human  body  and 
literal  hell-torments  and  other  irrational  and  un¬ 
scientific  assumptions  must  go  down  with  the 
false  foundation  upon  which  they  are  based. 

But  the  most  serious  aspect  of  this  subject  is 
yet  to  be  presented.  The  dogma  of  the  fall  and 
total  depravity  of  man  is  demoralizing ,  and  fur¬ 
nishes  an  excuse  for  wrong-doing.  It  not  only 
impeaches  the  divine  wisdom  and  love,  but  it 
makes  man  responsible  for  what  he  could  not 
help.  He  is  told  that  he  could  not  do  right  if 
he  would,  but  that  if  he  should  do  right  it  would 
count  for  nothing.  He  cannot  help  himself,  and 
he  inwardly  curses  God  and  Eve  and  all  his 
faithless  ancestry.  He  naturally  does  what  he 
is  told  he  cannot  help  doing,  just  as  children  are 
almost  sure  to  act  like  the  depraved  little  dem¬ 
ons  that  some  parents  call  them  and  teach  them 
to  believe  themselves  to  be.  And  yet  all  men 
feel  at  times  that  they  are  not  totally  depraved, 
that  they  have  more  good  impulses  than  bad 
ones,  and  that,  upon  the  whole,  they  perform 
more  good  acts  than  evil  ones. 

Equally  demoralizing  is  the  dogma  of  pardon 


Science  and  Creeds. 


21 1 


and  deliverance  from  the  consequences  of  wrong¬ 
doing  through  a  divine  contrivance  of  the  vica¬ 
rious  sufferings  of  an  innocent  person,  and  that 
human  disobedience  is  made  all  right  as  to  con¬ 
sequences  by  the  obedience  of  a  divine  man. 
The  answer  of  theologians  to  this  charge  is 
familiar  to  all,  but  is  not  practically  accepted 
by  common  minds.  When  the  child  enters  the 
Sunday-school  room  and  his  eyes  rest  upon  the 
conspicuous  placard,  “Jesus  Paid  it  All!”  the 
inference  is  that  there  is  nothing  more  to  pay. 
And  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  lesson 
that  the  sole  condition  of  pardon  is  faith  in  and 
acceptance  of  the  free  gift.  Thousands  of  igno¬ 
rant  persons,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  no  doubt 
secretly  rely  upon  this  easy  and  convenient  de¬ 
vice  to  cover  ud  their  numerous  shortcomings 

i.  o 

and  misdoings.  Such  dogmas  are  welcome  in 
the  murderer’s  cell  and  upon  the  platform  of  the 
gallows.  In  thousands  of  ignorant  minds  the 
thought  is  no  doubt  deeply  concealed  that  about 
the  surest  way  to  get  to  heaven  is  to  commit  a 
murder  and  have  the  “  benefit  of  clergy,”  and  in 
due  time  be  “jerked  to  Jesus”  (as  described  by 
a  Western  journal)  by  the  hangman’s  rope.  Such 
a  system  of  theology  must  be  demoralizing. 
Suppose  that  our  State  authorities  should  pro¬ 
claim  in  advance  free  pardon  and  a  princely  pal¬ 
ace  to  all  law-breakers  on  the  simple  condition 


212  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


of  trusting  in  the  kindly  interposition  and  substi- 
tion  of  another,  already  made  and  accepted ,  what 
would  be  the  effect  upon  public  morals  ?  All 
public  officers  know  the  evil  effects  of  the  “  par¬ 
don  ”  system,  and  how  even  the  faintest  hope  of 
pardon  encourages  crime,  and  how  certainly  a 
free  pardon  is  followed  by  a  life  of  even  increased 
criminality.  There  is  nothing  in  the  analogy  of 
nature,  nothing  in  the  jurisprudence  of  civilized 
nations,  nothing  in  reason  or  philosophy  or  sci¬ 
ence,  to  justify  the  theologic  method  of  dealing 
with  offenders.  It  violates  every  principle  of 
justice.  It  has  not  one  single  quality  of  right- 
fulness  in  it.  It  is  a  fiction  pure  and  simple  in 
fact  and  in  form.  Macaulay  well  said  of  this 
redemptive  contrivance,  “  It  resembles  nothing 
so  much  as  a  forged  bond  with  a  forged  release 
endorsed  upon  its  back.”  Greg  pungently  de¬ 
scribed  it  thus  :  “  It  looks  very  much  like  an 
impossible  debt  paid  in  an  inconceivable  coin, 
or  like  a  legal  fiction,  purely  gratuitous,  got  rid 
of  by  what  looks  very  like  a  legal  chicanery, 
purely  fanciful.”  It  was  hardly  known  to  Ter- 
tullian  in  the  third  century  of  our  era,  and  was 
finally  formulated  by  Anselm  in  the  eleventh 
Christian  century  on  certain  principles  of  Ro¬ 
man  law.  It  was  not  taught  by  Jesus,  and, 
though  known  to  the  Gnostics  in  the  second 
century  (a.  d.),  it  was  not  originated  by  them. 


Science  and  Creeds. 


213 


Ancient  pagan  hierophants  taught  the  dogma  of 
vicarious  atonement,  and  had  the  option  to  sac¬ 
rifice  their  own  sinless  persons  or  that  of  an  an¬ 
imal  to  propitiate  the  gods.  They  also  had  the 
dogma  of  the  mystic  “  new  birth  ”  through  the 
baptism  of  blood ,  and  that  long  before  the  Essenes, 
who  preceded  the  Christians  and  also  held  the 
dogma,  came  into  existence.  The  so-called 
mystery  of  the  Eucharist  is  older  than  the 
“paschal  lamb”  of  Judaism  or  the  “Lord’s 
Supper  ”  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is 
something  truly  significant  in  the  ancient  pagan 
rite  of  water- baptism,  symbolic  of  purification, 
but  the  dogma  of  purification  by  blood  is  devoid 
of  such  symbolic  significance,  and  if  contemplated 
without  superstitious  preconceptions  is  decidedly 
revolting.  It  implies  false  conceptions  of  God’s 
character  as  one  delighting  in  blood,  and  is  sug¬ 
gestive  of  the  sacrifice  of  human  beings,  and 
even  of  cannibalism.  It  is  a  relic  of  the  ancient 
barbaric  fetichism,  and,  except  when  used  meta¬ 
phorically  to  denote  suffering  for  others,  has  no 
place  in  a  rational  system  of  religion.  The  true 
at-one-ment  of  Jesus  was  to  reconcile  men  to 
God,  not  a  contrivance  to  appease  an  angry  God 
by  paying  a  price  for  the  redemption  of  man,  to 
satisfy  an  imaginary  claim  of  divine  justice,  and 
to  overcome  an  obstacle  to  the  salvation  of  men 
by  which  the  Infinite  found  himself  confronted. 


2 1 4  Man —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 

That  the  dominant  theology  of  the  past  and 
present  needs  revision ,  as  there  are  certain  under¬ 
lying  principles  in  almost  every  dogma  (as  Dr. 
James  Freeman  Clarke,  in  Orthodoxy ,  its  Truths 
and  Errors ,  has  ably  shown),  is  a  fact  fully  real¬ 
ized  by  all  clear  and  independent  thinkers.  The 
author  of  Ecce  Homo  (understood  to  be  Professor 
Seeley  of  the  University  College  of  London)  in 
his  recent  work,  Natural  Religion ,  has  clearly 
shown  that  the  opposition  of  scepticism  is  not 
antagonism  to  religion ,  but  to  certain  dogmas  of 
theology ,  and  that  about  all  that  scientific  sceptics 
object  to  can  be  given  up  without  affecting  the 
essential  principles  of  true  religion,  but  greatly 
to  its  advantage. 

Let  us  now  attempt  to  foreshadow  the  faith  of 
the  future  as  it  will  probably  be  held  by  inde¬ 
pendent  thinkers. 

They  will  not  accept  the  anthropomorphic, 
man-like  conceptions  of  God  as  found  in  the 
popular  theology  and  as  presented  in  portions 
of  the  Plebrew  Scriptures.  They  will  define  God 
as  spirit ,  and  will  improve  on  the  translation  in 
John  4  :  24  by  rendering  it  thus  :  “  Spirit  is  God." 
They  will  hold  the  idea  of  the  divine  immanence , 
as  being  in  all  things,  not  outside  of  anything. 

They  will  regard  the  divine  government,  nat¬ 
ural  and  moral  (though  they  will  probably  make 


Science  and  Creeds. 


215 


no  such  distinction),  as  pre-eminently  one  of 
law ,  and  will  find  the  highest  wisdom  in  seeking 
to  be  in  harmony  with  the  order  of  the  universe. 
They  will  have  little  or  no  faith  in  miracles  as 
defined  by  theologians,  and  will  probably  drop 
the  word  supernatural  from  their  vocabulary. 

They  will  regard  man  as  of  divine  origin ,  not 
by  miraculous  and  sudden  creation,  but  by  or¬ 
derly  evolution.  They  will  not  look  upon  man 
as  degraded  in  consequence  of  an  act  of  some 
ancestor  ages  and  ages  ago,  but  as  degraded,  if 
degraded,  by  his  own  acts  or  the  acts  of  his 
immediate  ancestors. 

They  will  recognize  the  law  of  heredity,  and 
seek  to  profit  by  it.  If  they  speak  of  a  child  as 
“  conceived  and  born  in  sin,”  they  will  mean  the 
sin  of  his  own  parents  and  their  immediate  an¬ 
cestors — the  sin  of  unrestrained  animal  lust,  the 
sin  of  alcoholic  stimulation,  of  narcotic  poison, 
and  other  violations  of  natural  law.  When  the 
fathers  eat  sour  grapes,  the  children’s  teeth  will 
always  be  set  on  edge. 

The  doctrine  of  “original  sin”  will  be  held  as 
already  explained,  and  some  things  now  called 
sins  will  be  called  infirmities.  Man’s  defective 
moral  status  will  be  esteemed  a  want  of  develop¬ 
ment ,  imperfection ,  incompleteness ,  rather  than 
essential  depravity  or  innate  viciousness. 

In  the  near  future  men  will  realize  that  salva- 


2i 6  Man— Whence  and  Whither? 


tion  has  other  than  a  theologic  meaning — that  if 
man  would  be  saved  from  sin  and  suffering  he 
must  save  himself  by  the  use  of  appropriate  rem¬ 
edies.  Evil  can  only  be  overcome  by  “  ceasing 
to  do  evil  and  learning  to  do  well.”  The  same 
principles  must  be  applied  to  religion  that  are 
applied  to  worldly  subjects.  Yet  the  word  savior 
will  not  become  obsolete.  There  have  been  many 
saviors,  and  men  to-day  may  profit  by  them  all, 
and  by  none  more  than  by  the  life  and  spirit  of 
the  sweet  humane  Prophet  of  Nazareth.  Confu¬ 
cius,  Gautama,  Socrates,  Plato,  and  many  others 
were  saviors  of  men,  and  so  were  Savonarola, 
Washington,  and  Lincoln.  Jesus  will  always 
have  the  pre-eminence,  but  not  in  the  theologic 
sense,  which  he  never  claimed  for  himself. 

The  pagan  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
material  human  body  at  some  future  day  will 
be  rejected  as  unscientific  and  absurd.  Sir  John 
Herschel  states  that  in  a  hundred  generations  one 
pair  of  human  beings  would  produce  such  a  mul¬ 
titude  that  if  spread  out  over  the  surface  of  the 
whole  earth,  and  standing  in  rows  of  persons  each 
four  feet  high,  the  height  of  the  column  in  three 
thousand  years  would  reach  to  three  thousand  six 
hundred  and  seventy-four  times  the  distance  be¬ 
tween  the  sun  and  the  earth  !  The  number  of 
human  strata  thus  piled  one  on  the  other  would 
amount  to  460,790,000,000,000.  These  and  sim- 


Science  and  Creeds. 


217 


ilar  arithmetical  and  physical  facts  may  properly 
be  considered  in  connection  with  the  ideas  of  the 
material  resurrection  and  general  judgment,  as  the 
earth  does  not  contain  matter  enough  and  space 
enough  to  justify  such  wild  dogmas.  Even  now 
thousands  of  thoughtful  persons  reject  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  a  physical  resurrection  on  scriptural 
grounds.  Paul  certainly  taught  the  resurrection 
of  a  spiritual  body  (1  Cor.  ch.  1 5).  Scholars  know 
that  the  Greek  word  “  anastasis "  commonly  trans¬ 
lated  “  resurrection  ’’  in  the  New  Testament,  means 
“ rising  up,"  not  rising  again,  or  resuscitation. 
The  rational  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  will 
be  found  to  be  the  rising  tip  ot  the  spiritual  body 
out  of  the  defunct  physical  body,  and  that  this 
resurrection  takes  place  at  the  time  of  death. 

The  idea  that  sin  deserves  eternal  punishment 
because  it  is  an  offence  against  an  infinite  God 
will  be  found  to  have  no  foundation.  A  finite 
man  cannot  commit  an  infinite  crime.  Wrong¬ 
doing  will  always  be  followed  by  suffering,  and 
the  true  idea  of  punishment  is  that  it  is  a  product 
or  consequence,  and  not  a  mere  judicial  penalty, 
and  that  it  is  always  remedial,  not  vindictive. 

When  religion  becomes  more  a  matter  of  rea¬ 
son  than  of  dogma  men  will  entertain  very  differ¬ 
ent  views  of  prayer.  They  will  not  ask  and  ex¬ 
pect  God  to  work  miracles,  to  suspend  the  order 
of  the  universe,  to  accommodate  them.  An  im- 


2 1 8  Alan —  Whence  and  Whither  ? 


portant  lesson  was  learned  when  millions  and 
millions  of  men  and  women  were  upon  their 
knees  praying  for  the  life  of  President  Garfield. 
The  physical  injury  done  by  Guiteau’s  bullet 
could  not  be  repaired  by  unnumbered  prayers. 
And  yet  prayer  is  a  true  religious  instinct,  and 
is  countenanced  by  Nature  and  philosophy.  The 
true  elements  of  prayer  are  meditation  and  aspi¬ 
ration  rather  than  supplication  for  special  favors. 
It  is  more  a  matter  of  the  heart  than  the  voice. 
It  is  rather  silence  than  gorgeous  ritualism  from 
richly-bound  prayer-books. 

Assemblies  for  public  worship  will  probably 
never  be  done  away.  There  are  many  things 
that  are  grand  and  inspiring  in  the  great  con¬ 
gregation,  and  many  advantages  that  could  be 
enumerated.  Proper  persons  to  lead  and  direct 
public  religious  exercises  will  perhaps  always 
be  a  necessity,  but  the  priestly  idea  is  bound  to 
destruction.  This  idea  has  already  found  prac¬ 
tical  expression  in  The  Index ,  in  an  article  by 
Robert  C.  Adams,  as  follows : 

•  •  •  “  The  question  then  arises,  How  can  we  do  with¬ 
out  ministers  ?  The  chief  offices  of  the  ministry  are  in 
connection  with  marriages,  funerals,  visitations,  sacra¬ 
ments,  and  church  services.  What  substitutes  can  be 
employed  ?  The  civil  magistrate  can  secure  the  marriage- 
bond.  The  professional  utterance  at  the  side  of  the  dead 
will  either  not  be  missed  by  the  mourners,  with  whom 
each  word  at  such  times  stirs  up  the  fountains  of  grief,  or 


Science  and  Creeds. 


219 


it  may  be  acceptably  replaced  by  the  simple  tribute  of  a 
friend  and  comrade  who  knew  the  departed  as  few  min¬ 
isters  ever  come  to  know  their  parishioners.  Visitation, 
of  the  sick  can  be  more  agreeably  carried  on  by  neigh¬ 
bors  and  friends,  who  now  often  deprive  the  invalid  and 
themselves  of  the  mutually  beneficial  expression  of  sym¬ 
pathy  and  acts  of  kindness  because  that  is  consideied  the 
pastor’s  sphere.  Sacraments,  if  continued,  can  be  admin¬ 
istered  by  laymen.  Church  attendance  has  too  many 
social  attractions  to  be  given  up,  and  where  a  minister  is 
lacking  the  services  might  be  conducted  after  this  man¬ 
ner  :  A  committee  should  be  formed  to  control  them,  one 
of  whom  should  in  turn  preside.  The  music  could  be  in¬ 
definitely  improved,  and  its  sphere  and  character,  as  to 
words,  tunes,  and  instruments,  enlarged.  Readings  of 
scriptures  from  ancient  and  modern  authors  should  be 
given  by  young  people  of  both  sexes  who  possess  orator¬ 
ical  talent.  If  prayer  is  not  outgrown,  there  will  be  always 
good  brethren  ‘  gifted  ’  in  that  respect,  some  of  whom  may 
even  exercise  the  somnolent  influence  attending  ‘  the  long 
prayer.’  But  how  can  the  sermon  be  replaced  ?  By  read¬ 
ing  a  printed  discourse  ?  By  no  means.  Every  congre¬ 
gation  possesses  thinking  and  cultured  men  with  good 
utterance.  Let  these  read  original  papers  upon  the  themes 
they  are  most  familiar  with,  the  subject  first  being  ap¬ 
proved  by  the  committee.  Let  there  be  one  paper  of 
half  an  hour’s  length  at  each  service,  and  let  a  discussion 
follow  for  another  half  hour  in  five-minute  speeches.  At 
the  close  let,  the  people  linger  for  friendly  greetings. 
Many  advantages  will  be  gained  by  this  method.  Each 
person’s  mind  runs  in  certain  directions  and  emphasizes 
particular  truths,  and  one  man  s  instructions  must  lack 
variety.” 

The  doctrine  of  holy  orders  of  men,  who  are 
supposed  to  be  endowed  with  sacred  func¬ 
tions  and  special  mediatorial  influence  with 


220  Man — Whence  and  Whither  ? 


God,  is  a  delusion  and  a  false  pretence,  a  relic 
of  Brahmanical  caste  and  pagan  sacerdotalism. 
The  ultimate  influence  of  priestcraft  has  always 
been  evil,  whether  among  barbarians  or  civilized 
peoples,  and  many  intelligent  persons  incline  to 
the  opinion  that  the  priestly  class  in  modern 
times  are  the  greatest  hindrance  to  the  progress 
of  virtue  and  true  religion,  and  the  chief  pro¬ 
moters  of  Atheism  and  Agnosticism.  Of  course, 
there  are  exceptions  to  this  sweeping  suspicion, 
but  the  feeling  is  becoming  general  that  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  these  United  States  are  not  receiving  proper 
returns  from  the  labors  of  the  seventy-five  thou¬ 
sand  ministers  whom  they  support  and  for  the 
millions  of  dollars  they  have  invested  in  churches. 
Simple  moral  teachers  of  both  sexes  could  well 
take  the  place  of  pompous  priests.  This  ques¬ 
tion  of  a  professional  priestly  class,  to  be  sup¬ 
ported  as  such,  is  one  into  which  many  sensible 
persons  are  inquiring,  and  in  regard  to  which 
they  will  reach  no  doubtful  conclusion. 

The  question  as  to  the  light  in  which  the  Bible 
will  be  regarded  as  science  advances  is  not  diffi¬ 
cult  to  answer.  Men  are  already  beginning  to 
realize  that  bibles  are  products  of  religion,  rather 
than  that  religions  are  products  of  the  bibles. 
We  say  bibles ,  because  all  religionists  have  their 
sacred  scriptures,  each  claiming  special  inspira¬ 
tion  and  infallibility.  Even  what  in  our  day  and 


Science  and  Creeds. 


221 


country  is  called  the  Bible  consists  of  sixty-six 
little  books  or  tracts  bound  up  in  one  volume. 
These  little  pamphlets  are  mostly  anonymous, 
and  are  of  uncertain  date  and  locality.  They 
contain  the  very  best  thoughts  of  the  writers  at 
the  time  of  their  writing,  and  contain  many 
things  that  will  never  become  obsolete.  The 
bibles  of  different  nations  should  be  studied  as 
we  study  history  and  geology,  as  showing  the 
development  and  progress  of  the  religious  senti¬ 
ment,  as  geology  shows  the  order  and  progress 
of  creation  The  greatest  enemies  of  the  Hebrew 
and  Christian  Bible  are  those  who  claim  for  it 
what  it  is  not.  The  greatest  mistake  of  the 
Christian  centuries  was  the  attempt  of  the  so- 
called  Reformers  to  offset  the  claim  of  an  infal¬ 
lible  pope  with  an  infallible  Bible.  Infallibility 
belongs  to  neither;  both  are  imperfect.  Book- 
infallibility  is  an  absurdity.  If  a  religion  is 
founded  upon  a  book,  it  must  share  in  the  im¬ 
perfections  and  mistakes  which  are  inseparable 
from  books.  Knowledge  is  comparative  and 
progressive,  while  books  are  stationary.  The 
attempt  to  settle  all  questions  of  morals  and 
religion  by  what  was  written  down  in  the  dark 
ages  of  barbarism  and  superstition  is  simply  ab¬ 
surd.  The  future  of  religion  should  not  be  made 
dependent  upon  any  dogma  or  alleged  historical 
facts  the  truth  of  which  progress  in  knowledge 


222  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


may  afterward  compel  men  to  reject.  It  is  un¬ 
wise  in  the  extreme  to  put  religion  in  a  close, 
perilous  alliance  with  what  is  at  least  question¬ 
able,  if  not  false,  and  to  subject  it  to  the  hazard 
involved  in  the  acceptance  of  fanciful  cosmogonies, 
discredited  chronologies,  and  miraculous  stories, 
which  science  and  modern  discoveries  have  al¬ 
ready  assigned  to  the  region  of  myth  and  the 
fabled  legends.  The  fragmentary  scraps  com¬ 
posing  our  Bible  may  be  studied  with  profit. 
As  helps  to  religion  they  are  more  or  less  useful  ; 
as  an  infallible  authority  they  are  without  merit. 
Men  know  that  they  are  not  infallible,  and  that 
all  parts  are  not  of  equal  excellence.  The  great 
promoters  of  scepticism  to-day  are  the  purblind 
pulpit  declaimers  and  their  dupes,  who  lustily 
vociferate,  “  If  everything  in  the  Bible  is  not 
true,  nothing  in  it  is  true “  If  you  reject  any 
part,  you  must  reject  all  ”  !  The  fact  is,  that 
many  things  in  the  Bible  are  true  and  many 
things  are  false.  Intelligent  men  of  the  future 
will  judge  the  Bible  by  its  merits,  just  as  they 
judge  other  books.  The  day  will  no  doubt 
come  when  the  world  shall  have  a  nezv  canon 
of  sacred  scriptures  compiled  from  the  best  spe¬ 
cimens  found  in  the  bibles  of  all  ages,  and  from 
which  will  be  excluded  everything  that  is  puerile, 
obscene,  manifestly  false,  or  unfit  to  be  read  in 
any  presence.  Such  a  book,  not  as  an  infallible 


Science  and  Creeds. 


223 

authority,  but  as  a  help  in  religion  and  morality, 
would  be  invaluable. 

It  is  not  intended  in  these  hasty  sketches  to 
even  suggest  a  formulated  creed.  Men  will 
never  be  of  one  mind  on  all  subjects.  But  the 
nearer  they  get  to  Nature,  the  nearer  they  will 
get  to  one  another.  The  methods  of  science  are 
sure  to  be  applied  in  the  domain  of  religion. 
A  religion  that  is  not  natural  is  not  worthy  of 
the  name.  Theology  says,  “  Let  science  be  si¬ 
lent  when  God  speaks.”  Reason  answers,  that 
when  true  science  speaks  it  is  the  voice  of  the 
Infinite.  All  happiness  here  and  hereafter  de¬ 
pends  upon  our  knowledge  of  the  order  of  the 
universe,  and  the  adaptation  of  our  lives  to  it.  It 
is  impossible  t'o  divorce  true  religion  and  real 
science.  The  more  we  have  of  the  latter,  the 
more  we  shall  have  of  the  former. 

Realizing  how  imperfectly  these  great  ques¬ 
tions  have  been  presented,  comfort  is  found  in 
the  following  inspiring  words  from  the  pen  of 
Theodore  Tilton  : 

“  Others  shall  sing  the  song, 

Others  shall  right  the  wrong— 

Finish  what  I  begin, 

And  all  I  fail  of  win. 

“  What  matter,  I  or  they, 

Mine  or  another’s  day, 


24+23  Man — Whence  and  Whither? 


So  the  right  word  be  said 
And  life  the  sweeter  made  ? 

“  Hail  to  the  coming  singers ! 

Hail  to  the  brave  light-bringers  ! 
Forward  I  reach,  and  share 
All  that  they  sing  and  dare. 

“  The  airs  of  heaven  blow  o’er  me  ! 
A  glory  shines  before  me 
Of  what  mankind  shall  be — 

Pure,.,  generous,  brave,  and  free — 

“A  dream  of  man  and  woman 
Diviner,  but  still  human, 

Solving  the  riddle  old, 

Shaping  the  Age  of  Gold ! 

“  The  love  of  God  and  neighbor; 
An  equal-handed  labor; 

The  richer  life,  where  beauty 
Walks  hand  in  hand  with  duty. 

“  Ring,  bells  in  unreared  steeples, 
The  joy  of  unborn  peoples  ! 
Sound,  trumpets  far  off  blown; 
Your  triumph  is  my  .own  ! 

“  Parcel  and  part  of  all, 

I  keep  the  festival, 

Fore-reach  the  good  to  be. 

And  share  the  victory. 

“  I  feel  the  earth  more  sunward, 

I  join  the  great  march  onward, 
And  take  by  faith,  while  living, 
My  freehold  of  thanksgiving.” 


A  dvertisement. 


225 


THE  BIBLE-WHENCE  AND  WHAT? 

BY  RICHARD  B.  WESTBROOK,  D.  D.,  LL.B. 

One  Volume.  Clotli.  Price,  $1.00. 

PUBLISHED  BY  J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT  &  CO., 

Nos.  715  and  717  Market  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


CONTENTS. 

I. — Foundation  of  the  “  Authorized  ”  Version  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment. 

II. — The  New  Version  Basis  (1881). 

III.  — Canonicity  of  the  Scriptures. 

IV. — Custody  of  the  Scriptures. 

V. — Miracle,  Prophecy,  Martyrdom,  and  Church  Infallibility. 

VI. — Internal  Evidence. 

VII. — Probable  Origin  of  the  Old  Testament. 

VIII. — Probable  Origin  of  the  New-Testament  Books. 

IX. — Probable  Origin  of  Certain  Boginas  found  in  all  Religions. 

X. — Is  the  Bible  strictly  Historical,  or  mainly  Allegorical? 

XI.— Were  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Scriptures  written  Before 
or  After  the  Pagan  Bibles? 

XII.— The  Summing-up. 

XIII.— Interlocutory. 

Extracts  from  Notices  of  the  Press. 

“  This  is  the  latest  of  critical  works  on  the  much-discussed  topic  of  the 
Bible;  and,  coming  from  the  pen  of  one  whose  titles  indicate  both  the 
scholastic  training  of  theology  and  of  law,  and  bearing  the  imprint  of  the 
old  and  popular  publishing-house  of  Lippincott  &  Co.,  one  naturally  ex¬ 
pects  to  find  in  the  little  volume  something  to  warrant  the  continuation  of 
this  discussion  at  this  late  day.  Nor  have  we  been  disappointed  in  read¬ 
ing  the  book,  for  we  find  it  replete  with  learning  from  hundreds  of  sources, 
entertaining  in  style,  strong  in  logic,  and  a  remarkable  specimen  of  the 
condensation  into  a  little  of  an  amount  of  research  that  implies  years  of 
conscientious  labor.” — Daily  Register ,  Newburgh,  N.  Y. 

“  The  reader  who  judges  by  the  orthodox  titles  of  the  writer  of  this  book 
that  a  defence  of  the  Bible  on  old  grounds  is  undertaken,  will  be  very  much 
surprised  to  find  in  this  volume  a  searching  and  broad  inquiry  into  the 
authenticity  of  the  authorized  version  itself.  The  method  of  the  writer  in 
discussing  ceremonials  is  that  of  the  late  Dean  Stanley,  who  traced  ‘  the 
elements  and  roots  of  religion  as  far  back  as  we  can  trace  the  history  of 
man.’  The  historical  method  is  employed  with  no  irreverent  spirit  by  Dr. 
Westbrook,  and  the  result  is  an  extremely  interesting  book.” — Public 
Ledger,  Philadelphia. 


226 


A  dvertisemen  t. 


“  A  frank  acknowledgment  that  the  age  of  mysticism  and  scholastic  sub- 
tilties  is  past,  and  that  broad  common-sense  must  be  umpire.  The  author 
declares  his  purpose  to  be  to  enlarge  and  strengthen  the  foundations  of  true 
religion.  He  believes  that  infidelity  can  be  checked  only  by  presenting 
more  rational  views  of  the  Bible  and  its  interpretation.  His  conclusions 
regarding  the  Bible  are  against  its  plenary,  supernatural  inspiration  and 
literal  infallibility." — Home  Journal ,  New  York. 

“  This  book  will  without  doubt  call  forth  much  adverse  criticism,  yet  it 
must  be  condemned  only  by  those  who  fear  to  let  the  light  of  truth  in  upon 
the  dark  places  of  their  understandings.  .  .  .  The  book  is  clearly,  forcibly, 
and  ably  written.  The  style  is  lively  and  calculated  to  interest  all  who 
have  any  taste  for  the  subjects  therein  discussed.  It  is  scarcely  necessary 
to  say  that  it  is  logical.  This  work  aims  only  to  expose  the  fallacy  of  the 
idea  that  the  Bible  must  be  accepted  as  of  absolute  authority,  simply  be¬ 
cause  men  have  said  that  it  must  be  so  received  ;  it  is  an  authority  because 
and  in  so  far  as  it  is  true,  not  true  because  it  has  been  declared  to  be  an 
authority.” — The  Journal  {Friends’ ),  Philadelphia. 

“  All  interested  in  theological  research  will  find  this  volume  both  valuable 
and  interesting.  It  is  fearless,  sensible,  and  outspoken.  In  it  the  Bible 
and  all  the  facts  connected  with  it  are  examined  in  a  rational  manner,  and 
the  result  cannot  fail  to  meet  the  approval  of  all  scholars  and  deep  think¬ 
ers." —  Chronicle-Herald,  Philadelphia. 

“  And  now  comes  a  Doctor  of  Divinity,  with  his  reason,  logic,  and 
learning,  and  tells  us  what  the  Bible  is  and  whence  it  came.  .  .  .  The 
great  mass  of  reading  people  are  inclined  to  know  the  truth  if  it  can  be 
reached,  and  this  author,  hiding  nothing  that  is  known  to  the  learned,  and 
still  clinging  to  the  Christian  religious  belief,  takes  the  anxious  reader  by 
the  hand  and  leads  him  up  to  the  facts  so  far  as  they  have  been  ascer¬ 
tained.  .  .  .  This  volume  casts  a  flood  of  light  upon  things  not  generally 
known,  but  which  linguistic  and  biblical  scholars  admit,  and  the  author 
thinks  that  the  people  have  a  right  to  know  all  that  can  be  known.  .  .  — 

The  Republican ,  St.  Louis. 

“  It  would  be  well  if  not  only  the  laity,  but  also  clergymen,  should 
read  and  carefully  study  this  book.  Mucb  of  bigotry  that  now  obtains 
would  then  be  dissipated,  and  a  broader,  truer  view  of  Christianity  would 
be  the  result.  " — National  Republican,  Washington,  D.  C. 

“  Dr.  Westbrook  has  brought  together  in  his  book  a  great  many  facts 
and  a  great  deal  of  valuable  information  in  regard  to  the  Bible,  its  author¬ 
ship  and  authority.  .  .  .  Besides  the  historical  information  there  are  intel¬ 
ligent  and  scholarly  arguments  on  the  basis  of  acknowledged  facts  regard¬ 
ing  the  authenticity  of  the  books  and  the  dogmas  of  the  Bible,  and  very 
interesting  comparisons  of  the  texts  of  the  Christian  religion  with  those  of 
other  religions.  .  .  .  The  work  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  the  history  of 
the  Bible.” — Boston  Post. 

“  It  is  a  condensed  presentation  of  views  with  regard  to  the  origin  of  the 
Bible,  its  teachings,  and  its  claims  to  a  supernatural  character,  presented 
from  a  rationalistic  standpoint.  Its  style  is  particularly  direct  and  forci¬ 
ble,  and  its  general  arrangement  is  excellent.  There  is  the  fruit  of  much 
reading,  study,  and  thought  in  its  pages;  it  is  thoroughly  independent  in 
its  tone,  and  as  an  epitome  of  the  views  which  its  author  holds  is  much  to 
be  commended  for  its  compact  and  clear  method." — Boston  Saturday  Even¬ 
ing  Gazette. 


V 


